Quoting STT757 (Reply 1):
Local business report on WCBS 880 in New York stated that AA plans to grow JFK after their merger with US. Love to know how they're going to do that.

1) Expand flying outside of peak departure times, where slots are plentiful and not an issue (e.g. slots around noon are easy to grab; noon is prime departure to Asia. I know AA is in fact considering JFKPVG).

2) Trim ERJ flying and replace with long-haul flying. Those once dai.y ERJs to CVG, ORF, BWI, etc. are not necessary now that AA has a hub in PHL.

3) Pre-anticipate that DOT/DOJ will force AA to give up Reagan slots, and arrange another slot swap with JetBlue to acquire, say, a dozen prime departure slots for 12-18 Reagan slots. With an operation still focused on trans-cons, Carribean departures and Florida, the 4-8P primary departure times aren't important for JetBlue, and B6 might be more than willing to shift its JFK departures around in order to gain an expanded footprint at Reagan.

I was looking at documentation that US/AA provided on the merger website. One thing I found is there are a few western cities that US serves from PHX that are not served at all by AA. The question is, are these cities still going to be served from PHX post merger, or is AA going to pull out entirely, or shift the service to other hubs? Something to think about.

As others have also suggested, my guess is that AA plans to replace peak slots now used by RJs with mainline (primarily transcon and/or longhaul flights). AA already has a strong network at JFK, but I think it could benefit from some strategic additions in key New York O&D markets (both domestic and international) not already served.

AA forces transfers through JFK onto international flights because in many cases AA has little alternative to JFK for handling those connections. Now, with PHL, connections to Europe from places like CVG, BWI, CLE, etc. can be routed over the far larger PHL hub, freeing up JFK slots and capacity to be allocated in a more optimized way for the local O&D market.

Quoting apodino (Reply 7):I was looking at documentation that US/AA provided on the merger website. One thing I found is there are a few western cities that US serves from PHX that are not served at all by AA. The question is, are these cities still going to be served from PHX post merger, or is AA going to pull out entirely, or shift the service to other hubs? Something to think about.

There are several - around 10, I think - markets in the western U.S. that are served by US through PHX but not AA at all (although many of them are markets AAused to serve within the last decade, such as LGB, OAK, SBP, BOI, BFL, etc.). My guess is that some of them may well transition to either DFW or a DFW/PHX mix, as DFW provides greater connectivity than PHX ever can.

Btw I don't know why some people insist in keeping flights to BCN just because it is a "Oneworld hub". Vueling is not a OW partner airline, so BCN is not a OW hub.

Quoting commavia (Reply 8):AA forces transfers through JFK onto international flights because in many cases AA has little alternative to JFK for handling those connections. Now, with PHL, connections to Europe from places like CVG, BWI, CLE, etc. can be routed over the far larger PHL hub, freeing up JFK slots and capacity to be allocated in a more optimized way for the local O&D market.

This has been discussed to extenuation in the previous thread. The real fact is that most carriers world wide prefer to use an airport with a huge O&D base (in this case NYC VS Philadelphia) and transfer people there... more O&D makes more routes viable... specially from Europe from where many secondary cities would only make viable a flight to New York (largest O&D in the US by far to most of those destinations) and good connectivity opportunities. That is what BA does in overcrowded Heathrow (why don't they split it between LHR and BHX for instance) or AF in CDG. Sure both BA and AF use LGW and ORY, but both London and Paris play in a very different league (comparable only to New York) and both airports serve roughly the same O&D market (same as DL does from JFK and LGA).

I feel that some people here might give the impression that transiting through an airport in a smaller city with less O&D would be more convenient. Particularly in PHL I don't think it is the case... the airport is not bad but either amazing (I prefer AA's terminal at JFK for transiting) and it shares the same crowded airspace and likely the same issues as JFK if there is a windstorm, for instance.

However for some reason many ppl insist here that "splitting" O&D with JFK and transfer with PHL makes sense. We will see.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 9):The real fact is that most carriers world wide prefer to use an airport with a huge O&D base (in this case NYC VS Philadelphia) and transfer people there... more O&D makes more routes viable... specially from Europe from where many secondary cities would only make viable a flight to New York (largest O&D in the US by far to most of those destinations) and good connectivity opportunities.

That may be true in Europe, as you posit, but how do we explain the relative sizes of ATL versus JFK or SFO versus LAX? In each case, the hub in the more "world class" city is significantly smaller.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 9):Btw I don't know why some people insist in keeping flights to BCN just because it is a "Oneworld hub". Vueling is not a OW partner airline, so BCN is not a OW hub.

True - BCN is not a oneworld hub, but it is a market where oneworld has a relatively strong market penetration given the local presence of Iberia, and Vueling, which is a partner in Iberia's frequent flyer program.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 9):The real fact is that most carriers world wide prefer to use an airport with a huge O&D base (in this case NYC VS Philadelphia) and transfer people there... more O&D makes more routes viable

True - most carriers would prefer that. But the reality in the northeastern U.S. is that there is only one hub that can effectively combing both a huge O&D base and also be a huge connecting hub catering to all types of connecting flows - domestic and international, longhaul and shorthaul, throughout the day. That hub is EWR, and that hub is obviously taken. Given that, PHL is the only other hub in the reason capable of even coming close.

JFK and LGA are both limited by the fact that while they obviously both cater to a massive local market, they also compete with each other - and EWR - and the overall NYC market is now highly competitive, with (soon) four airlines each having 15-20%+ of the market share. PHL, while a smaller O&D market, true, is still a very large O&D market by national standards, and yet it competes with no other major connecting hub in the same metro area, and it's handily dominated by the hub airline. Given that, it's a great "silver medal" as hubs go in the northeast.

However, all that being said, AA is now in the strong position of being able to enjoy - to some extent - the best (or at least the "better") of both worlds: AA will continue to maintain a huge local presence in the New York market, with ~300 daily flights to dozens of cities catering (primarily) to the local O&D demand, while also having a huge, 400+ flight hub just down I-95 to handle not only the PHL market's O&D (relatively smaller than NYC's), but also connections. That is a lot of network breadth and depth in both markets, and the two should compliment each other well.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 9):I feel that some people here might give the impression that transiting through an airport in a smaller city with less O&D would be more convenient. Particularly in PHL I don't think it is the case... the airport is not bad but either amazing (I prefer AA's terminal at JFK for transiting) and it shares the same crowded airspace and likely the same issues as JFK if there is a windstorm, for instance.

No question. AA's JFK terminal is overall vastly superior to the PHL terminal facilities, but PHL is at least functional. It's overcrowded, outdated, and in need of investment. But, then again, that could describe part or all of many airport terminals in the northeast.

Quoting commavia (Reply 11):No question. AA's JFK terminal is overall vastly superior to the PHL terminal facilities, but PHL is at least functional. It's overcrowded, outdated, and in need of investment. But, then again, that could describe part or all of many airport terminals in the northeast.

PHL has a fair amount of cosmetic and functional work done or planned, including a people mover that would make connections work a whole lot better. This recent press release has a somewhat complete list.

I am not sure how profitable AA growth at JFK would be. It is definitely attractive looking on a map. But JFK is competitive. AA apparently has a good facility at JFK. But getting a high RASM at JFK isn't just trivially easy.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 10):That may be true in Europe, as you posit, but how do we explain the relative sizes of ATL versus JFK or SFO versus LAX? In each case, the hub in the more "world class" city is significantly smaller.

You are right... Europe is different to the US in many senses. I am not talking only about "world cities" but the necessity of tapping any market. My comment about "world cities" was mostly regarding the fact that for AF, BA or DL, keeping two hubs in the same city (when they are such major economic and tourism centers) probably makes more sense than for AA keeping both JFK and PHL... two nearby distinctive markets.

ATL's success is due to different factors as we all know:

- Location, no other major or medium airport in many many miles away (not the case for PHL). And certainly DL has not another hub 150 miles away ... and don't forget IAD is not far either from PHL.
- Convenience and expansion... sure ATL is not "nice" or state of the art but it is a very efficient machine to transfer (the airport itself and the paralel runways system). Also, the airspace is not crowded. Not the case for PHL either.
- Good weather. Not the case for PHL.
- Very good location to transfer from Europe to Florida, Texas, West Coast... not the case for PHL (AND it doesn't have any geographic advantage to NYC). Even if as some ppl say here, PHL can serve a bunch of secondary markets that probably NYC can't... is it worth to keep an intercontinental hub just for the sake of 8 or 10 PVD and the likes? BA concentrated operations in London (I know that BA is the dominant player in London, not the case for AA in NYC) so some UK markets like MAN or BHX have been more and more "lost" to foreign carriers... but would it be worth for them to have kept hubs in those places just to get more share of those markets? Probably not.

On top of that, whether PHL can still be a major market, current economy, demographics (and their prospects) are really grim and I assume (this has been pointed in this thread) yields are not really that high. Again, just look at how little to none interest Philadelphia Airport gets from foreign carriers and then compare it to similar +- metro areas like Boston, Miami, DC, San Francisco, Dallas... it is like night and day. I would see a point to keep PHL even if it is so close to NYC if Philadelphia would be a kind of booming powerhouse with high yields and economic growth, like San Jose or Houston, but this is certainly not the case.

True the discussion over PHL has been had at length in the previous thread. However, the arguement clearly favors a significan usage of the PHL airport even if a few transatlantic destinations shift to JFK. That has been supported by data whereas the arguement for shutting down PHL is predominantly anecdotal and rhetorical.

Would the combined airline prefer at JFK super hub to a PHL one? I'm sure they would. Can they create JFK into a hub that serves the same function as PHL as a domestic and international connector serving all cities big and small on the east coast and Eastern Midwest? Absolutely not. AA has neither the gates or slots at JFK to create that. Unless the new AA is prepared to give those markets to DL and UA, the need PHL and won't be dumb enough to shut it down. Not to mention the PHL transatlantic market is only small compared to NYC and Boston. When you compare it with other markets across the US, it's quite sizable.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):I am not sure how profitable AA growth at JFK would be. It is definitely attractive looking on a map. But JFK is competitive. AA apparently has a good facility at JFK. But getting a high RASM at JFK isn't just trivially easy.

It might get better once more small-spoke routes are cut in favor of either transcontinental or high-revenue transcon flights.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 14):Even if as some ppl say here, PHL can serve a bunch of secondary markets that probably NYC can't... is it worth to keep an intercontinental hub just for the sake of 8 or 10 PVD and the likes?

This is basically arguing against the hub system itself in favor of high volume P2P.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 14): Location, no other major or medium airport in many many miles away (not the case for PHL). And certainly DL has not another hub 150 miles away ... and don't forget IAD is not far either from PHL.

The population density is much higher in the northeast, though. There aren't other major airports near ATL because there aren't other major cities near Atlanta. The next closest MSAs over, say, 1.5 million are Nashville and Charlotte, and those are about 250 miles away.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 14):ery good location to transfer from Europe to Florida, Texas, West Coast... not the case for PHL (AND it doesn't have any geographic advantage to NYC

Europe-Flords/Texas/West Coast are all shorter via PHL than via ATL.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 14):On top of that, whether PHL can still be a major market, current economy, demographics (and their prospects) are really grim

Philadelphia is surely a more mature market than, say, Atlanta or Houston, but which economic fundamentals are poor?

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 6):1) Expand flying outside of peak departure times, where slots are plentiful and not an issue (e.g. slots around noon are easy to grab; noon is prime departure to Asia. I know AA is in fact considering JFKPVG).

I'm sure AA will consider this option but this still doesn't create an all day 400+ flts hub

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 9):However for some reason many ppl insist here that "splitting" O&D with JFK and transfer with PHL makes sense. We will see.

The comment below addresses this perfectly. If it it were a perfect world for AA/US they would certainly choose JFK over PHL for a Northeast mega hub (400+ flts). Problem is that it's not a perfect world and the best they can do is what MAH suggested and optimize JFK and add flts where they can.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 15):
Would the combined airline prefer at JFK super hub to a PHL one? I'm sure they would. Can they create JFK into a hub that serves the same function as PHL as a domestic and international connector serving all cities big and small on the east coast and Eastern Midwest? Absolutely not. AA has neither the gates or slots at JFK to create that.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 15):True the discussion over PHL has been had at length in the previous thread. However, the arguement clearly favors a significan usage of the PHL airport even if a few transatlantic destinations shift to JFK. That has been supported by data whereas the arguement for shutting down PHL is predominantly anecdotal and rhetorical.

And I haven't said either that PHL would be closed... my point is that AA would carry whatever they can from PHL to JFK.

So we basically agree again... PHL is not that important market... if AA at JFK would be able to expand operations as pleased... PHL could be shut down or largely minimized. If PHL would be such relevant market, AA would not do that even if they could grow at JFK as they want.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 20):So we basically agree again... PHL is not that important market... if AA at JFK would be able to expand operations as pleased... PHL could be shut down or largely minimized. If PHL would be such relevant market, AA would not do that even if they could grow at JFK as they want.

Well in all defense I think you'd be hard pressed to find a major carrier (past or present) that would not bite at the opportunity to turn JFK, or EWR for that matter, into a 400+ hub with connections to the US, Europe, South America, and Asia. I don't think that means PHL is not relevant.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 20):So we basically agree again... PHL is not that important market... if AA at JFK would be able to expand operations as pleased... PHL could be shut down or largely minimized. If PHL would be such relevant market, AA would not do that even if they could grow at JFK as they want.

There is not one market in the US that is more important as NYC. Comparing it to any city in the US is not apples to apples.

PHL's ability to expand is quite limited given their current location. However, if they were to move deeper into the suburbs such as a IAD case, would that help any? Or is it the city's corporate image that needs to be changed? This is more an issue of airport management/planning as well as city politics.

Get down to the HUB issue: PHL should be kept.

PHL itself has gone through renovations and I'm quite impressed by what I've seen by the newer international concourse,the F regionals concourse is quite nice too. However, C, D, E are not so nice. Too antiquated. AA will move from its current location and take over the whole terminal, but where will ALL its planes go?

I don't think that PHL will become redundant. It's market is quite unique. Why did WN or VX choose to go to PHL? There has to be a reason.

No one is going to allow America's birthplace to go unnoticed, I'm sure of that.
By circumstance and history, the four major centres of the eastern seaboard, BOS, NYC, PHL and WAS just happened to be populated as such.
Why should PHL be given lower priority or lower relevance as a hub? I would hate to see it downgraded. JFK's strength is international. PHL's strength is domestic/Caribbean/Europe. Keep it as such.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 16):True, but I wonder what they're going to use TATL

US gets more A330's this year and next to replace most if not all remaining 762's and AA has a lot of 787's on order. This combined with some schedule rationalization (movement of some TATL flying CLT?) may free up some needed WB metal. Also, are all of the 77W's net new? If they are, that is a lot of new WB's to find a home for.

Quoting AA767LOVER (Reply 25):PHL's ability to expand is quite limited given their current location. However, if they were to move deeper into the suburbs such as a IAD case, would that help any? Or is it the city's corporate image that needs to be changed? This is more an issue of airport management/planning as well as city politics.

Are you referencing PHL's physical ability to expand? Essentially they can't.
The options are (20+ year plan):
-put a new runway partially in the river
-redesign the terminals to alleviate the "alleyway" congestion
-knock down some of the airport hotels by long term parking and put a build a regional terminal and build a new mainline terminal over the current F terminal

wonder what chance GSO has of seeing mainline jets back... maybe lower the 9+ flights a day to CLT and upgrade DFW to mainline ... or how about relaunching GSO-ORD to compete with UA ... hopefully the US Club will stay open long enough to be an Admirals Club

Quoting AA767LOVER (Reply 25):PHL itself has gone through renovations and I'm quite impressed by what I've seen by the newer international concourse,the F regionals concourse is quite nice too. However, C, D, E are not so nice. Too antiquated. AA will move from its current location and take over the whole terminal, but where will ALL its planes go?

I am not sure what you are saying here. D and E are used by DL, UA, and WN primarily and this is still going to be true post merger. American is currently in A East, and given the face that US uses most of the non AA gates in A East for some international stuff, they aren't moving anywhere, and in fact their gates can be easily converted into International Arrival gates which will give them more capacity in that regard. AA isn't moving, they are just expanding big time with the merger.

As for JFK being a 400 flights per day hub...forget about it. You would be talking about 20 arrivals an hour in that situation, which is nearly half of what JFK ATC can actually handle in an hour. Throw in the DL and B6 operations, and you are at gridlock in JFK. And that is before you account for any international carriers, of which there are plenty. I think somewhere in the ballpark of 150-200 would be optimal for AA in JFK, though I do think it is going to be more like 100-150 in the early phases of this merger. Given that US is at 450 or so flights per day in PHL right now, I can't see much happening here, except for some key markets adding in LGA/JFK. But I think PHL is safe at 400 flights or so.

Here is an interesting list, this is the number of departures that the combined carrier currently has in each hub.

One thing I notice on this list is CLT compared to MIA. Most of the CLT traffic is Domestic, while MIA has a good chunk of Caribbean and Latin America traffic. I suspect some of the CLT traffic fitting that bill might be moved to MIA, but there is no way that MIA can absorb all of what CLT provides.

PHX is the one that people have been worried about. Well, there are a few cities like I have mentioned where only US serves from PHX (and in some cases AA on DFW pulled out from). Stations like BUR, LGB, BFL are places where PHX makes more sense than DFW. Also, US serves OAK from PHX, which is another route AA pulled out from. US has been able to make these routes work from PHX, while AA has not been able to from existing hubs. This is one aspect of the merger to keep an eye on. Not to mention the O and D traffic in PHX, and given what is happening, yields in PHX are going up.

Quoting apodino (Reply 30):One thing I notice on this list is CLT compared to MIA. Most of the CLT traffic is Domestic, while MIA has a good chunk of Caribbean and Latin America traffic. I suspect some of the CLT traffic fitting that bill might be moved to MIA, but there is no way that MIA can absorb all of what CLT provides.

That comparison is somewhat skewed because average aircraft size is quite a bit higher at MIA.

One thing I notice on this list is CLT compared to MIA. Most of the CLT traffic is Domestic, while MIA has a good chunk of Caribbean and Latin America traffic. I suspect some of the CLT traffic fitting that bill might be moved to MIA, but there is no way that MIA can absorb all of what CLT provides.

It's also interesting the impact the AA/BA ATI will have on the hubs as I expect that US will leave Star and join oneworld (and the AA/BA ATI) before the merger of AA/US at a ground level (full fleet/crew integration). Flights from the AA/US hubs to LHR currently stand at: -

The fact that PHL can support three flights already, when BA and US effectively have a hub at one end only each, wuld suggest that - IMHO - LHR-PHL could easily increase to 4x or 5x Daily when the ATI deal can exploit hubs at PHL and LHR for all flights.

CLT-LHR would, I suspect, regain a BA flight to complement the US flight given the markets that what becomes a hub-to-hub route can exploit.

The interesting one for me is the LHR-PHX route, that BA can curently sustain entirely on O&D traffic at the LHR end. I'm not saying this flight would go 2x Daily, but if the new AA maintains a sizeable presence in PHX then in a couple of years moving from say 1x Daily BA 744 to 2x Daily BA 772 (or AA 332/BA 772).

Again, I think that the US hubs offer a real opportunity for AA's partners to exploit greater access to the US market through joint ventures, and seeing AA or JL 788s operating PHX-NRT and PHL-NRT aren't outside the realm of possibilities.

I know a lot of this is speculation, but once US transitions to oneworld and starts beuilding links with those carriers as the merger progresses, then I think the international flights that operate from (and get added to) PHX, CLT and PHL will indicate the importance of these hubs to new combined carrier.

I wonder if LH will keep the CLT-MUC (and US the CLT-FRA) once there is no Star feed at the US end. Maybe it will make more sense for LH to cancel MUC and start CLT-FRA just focusing on Charlotte's O&D transiting to Europe/Asia.

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 32): The interesting one for me is the LHR-PHX route, that BA can curently sustain entirely on O&D traffic at the LHR end. I'm not saying this flight would go 2x Daily, but if the new AA maintains a sizeable presence in PHX then in a couple of years moving from say 1x Daily BA 744 to 2x Daily BA 772 (or AA 332/BA 772).

The BA744 is always an interesting flight here on our end. A few years back someone was speculating that they would send the A380 here, which we know won't happen for quite some time. What a few of us are thinking, if the O&D continues to grow, is that BA will send a 772 to compliment the daily 744 about 3 times a week, and eventually that will grow to probably 2x (daily) 772 or 1x773 1x772....maybe eventually 1x744 1x773 if things really begin to pick up again. All speculation for now.

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 32):CLT-LHR would, I suspect, regain a BA flight to complement the US flight given the markets that what becomes a hub-to-hub route can exploit.

One thing though is with the ATI it may not necessarily make sense for AA/US and BA to each operate 1 flt. I think CLT may be a candidate for AA/US to just operate 2 daily

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 33):I wonder if LH will keep the CLT-MUC (and US the CLT-FRA) once there is no Star feed at the US end. Maybe it will make more sense for LH to cancel MUC and start CLT-FRA just focusing on Charlotte's O&D transiting to Europe/Asia.

This one will be interesting. I think if anything stays LH will knock it down to a 330/343 because the 346 is way too much aircraft without the feed.

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 35):One thing though is with the ATI it may not necessarily make sense for AA/US and BA to each operate 1 flt. I think CLT may be a candidate for AA/US to just operate 2 daily

It's hard to say. I think BA could come in with a daily flight so that it's frequent fliers who want to fly on BA can do so. I know the ATI between AA/BA is meant to be metal neutral, but there are differences in the product offerings, and as CLT will be a hub-to-hub flight I could see both carriers operating a flight.

Quoting CIDFlyer (Reply 28):Im hoping we could see some CLT flights into the heartland, like what DL has from ATL. Places like PIA, CMI, CID, MSN, GRR etc.

I can see a GRR-PHL trip, though, especially with the AMS trip out of PHL. It would be a nice connection. Lots of people from GRR go to the Netherlands...........Would be competitive with the connections on DL(DTW, JFK) and UA(ORD, EWR).

I would expect that we see some domestic hub to hub flying, especially if both hubs have International services. Routes like JFK-PHL may see some 777's, 330's, 767's as this transition takes place. How many other domestic widebody flying may we see from the combined AA?

- I agree with many that given the current availability of slots at JFK, the new AA will have to keep PHL and use it to serve smaller Northeast connection markets for which there would be no space at JFK. However, what if the new AA goes for JetBlue, and uses their slots and fleet to build that super-hub at JFK? That would allow them to de-hub Philadelphia or turn it into a focus city and to run a single hub at JFK, plus to re-hub Boston if they would like to. Would this make sense in economic terms? Would the DOJ allow it, and if so, what would be the likely conditions on such an acquisition?

- About PHX, I am not familia with the Western U.S. market, but just by looking at the map, it looks like for some destinations West of DFW connecting there would mean a lot of backtracking, and also to a extent for some destinations East of LAX connecting there. Isn't Phoenix quite a good hub to route traffic to Mexico and Central America from the Western U.S., at least to an extent, with enough O&D to support a connecting hub? Wouldn't people prefer to transfer at PHX if that means an easier, more direct connection? Isn't this a somehow similar situation to the JFK-PHL one? I imagine that DFW is not a problem, but how much could AA increase their operation at LAX?

Quoting AA767LOVER (Reply 25):Why did WN or VX choose to go to PHL? There has to be a reason.

The main reason why WN chose to come to PHL was because US (pre-HP merger) was in Chapter 11 and was heading for Chapter 7. Given those conditions, WN was not going to sit idle and let FL continue to expand (which they were doing at the time) nor allow B6 (they weren't at BOS yet) to come in.

The reason for VX coming was likely due to WN cutting some of their PHL-West Coast nonstops.

In a couple of months, B6 will finally be coming to PHL offering service to their BOS hub; since WN abandoned all their PHL-New England routes over a year ago.

Quoting Markam (Reply 44): However, what if the new AA goes for JetBlue, and uses their slots and fleet to build that super-hub at JFK?

*Groans* Oh for the love of...
How about waiting to see whether or not DOJ approves this AA/US merger first. If they ultimately approve it (most do not see any reason why they won't) and barring a carrier heading towards Chapter 7, I don't see any mergers w/the remaining legacy carriers happening anytime soon.

And what the heck do you (and others) have against B6 that you keep talking about them merging with any of the legacy carriers. B6 merging w/any legacy carrier would ultimately kill every element of the B6 brand that curerntly makes them unique. The only surviving entities of such would be likely be the aircraft and routes the larger carrier doesn't yet serve. For B6, or any other LFC for that matter, such a move would be suicidal.

With the new flights AA added last year and the new ones this year Mia will continue
to grow. Especially with more 773 comming into the fleet. With the 787 comming into the
fleet eventually (without any more problems or delays) possibilities are endless.

Phx will shrink but not de-hub. Some flights will shift to Dfw & maybe Lax
there is the possibility of new flights but not much. Phx will stay a strong focus city.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 20):So we basically agree again... PHL is not that important market... if AA at JFK would be able to expand operations as pleased... PHL could be shut down or largely minimized. If PHL would be such relevant market, AA would not do that even if they could grow at JFK as they want.

PHL is an incredibly important market. You don't just dehub the number 6 (5 by some measurements) metro area in the country for, pardon the expression, shits and giggles. So it's not as important as NYC...neither is anywhere else. Should DL dehub ATL and try to build up JFK just because JFK is more important? Certainly not. Not everyone needs a fortress hub in New York City to be successful.

Quoting mia305 (Reply 46):Phx will shrink but not de-hub. Some flights will shift to Dfw & maybe Lax
there is the possibility of new flights but not much. Phx will stay a strong focus city.

That's contradictory. A hub is not a focus city. I personally believe PHX will end up a focus city, not a true hub. It seems you would agree.

Quoting Markam (Reply 44):However, what if the new AA goes for JetBlue, and uses their slots and fleet to build that super-hub at JFK? That would allow them to de-hub Philadelphia or turn it into a focus city and to run a single hub at JFK, plus to re-hub Boston if they would like to.

"Goes for"? I'm assuming you don't mean a takeover since it would never be approved by the powers that be. Otherwise you mean a blanket codeshare, and even if they did, still doesn't justify dehubbing PHL. PHL is still a much larger market than BOS. US closed the BOS focus city about the same time as PIT (within a year or so of it) and kept PHL for good reason.

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 48):Should DL dehub ATL and try to build up JFK just because JFK is more important? Certainly not. Not everyone needs a fortress hub in New York City to be successful.

Apples & oranges comparison. The main issue regarding the JFK & PHL hubs is their relatively close proximity to each other. JFK & ATL much further apart distancewise.

Past history has shown that when two hubs are located in close proximity to each other (as a result of an airline merger); one of them eventually gets downgraded... especially when things get tough econmically. If there were no slot restrictions over at JFK, this merger would've definitely lead to PHL being downgraded to a focus city. A few years after its merger w/PI and beforeWN came on the scene; US gradually downsized its BWI hub in favor of its PHL hub.

If EWR had no restrictions, UA would eventually would have had to chose between there or IAD if one of those hubs had to be let go for econmic reasons.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 45):How about waiting to see whether or not DOJ approves this AA/US merger first. If they ultimately approve it (most do not see any reason why they won't) and barring a carrier heading towards Chapter 7, I don't see any mergers w/the remaining legacy carriers happening anytime soon.

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 48):"Goes for"? I'm assuming you don't mean a takeover since it would never be approved by the powers that be. Otherwise you mean a blanket codeshare, and even if they did, still doesn't justify dehubbing PHL. PHL is still a much larger market than BOS. US closed the BOS focus city about the same time as PIT (within a year or so of it) and kept PHL for good reason.

Well, that was my question, whether an after-merger take-over of JetBlue would have any chances of being approved by the DOJ, if it overcame all the other obstacles. Given your replies, I will take that the answer is NO...

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 45):And what the heck do you (and others) have against B6 that you keep talking about them merging with any of the legacy carriers.

Hey, I do not have anything against B6, and as far back as I can remember, I haven't talked about them merging with or being acquired by anyone else. I think that B6 is a great airline and can do perfectly well by itself, but it cannot be ignored that from the point of view of AA (and others), B6 would be a succulent bite to swallow if they could/were allowed to, if only for the slots that B6 holds at JFK.

I fully believe BA will come to CLT, 777 in the summer and 763 in the winter. I also think LH will stay they have alot of business contracts in the area, has to be enough to sustain a daily A333. From the OAG schedule looks like US is testing DUB and MAD because I believe they will be extended an extra month. Maybe they can survive in the merger. I honestly thing this merger is a benefit and I think this will help CLT

My view on PHX is that what will happen here is what happened at SJU with AA a few years ago. I think it'll still be a large regional hub and then all that traffic will be routed onto mainline flights to the various hubs. Maybe A few mainline flights will stay, like the Hawaiian ones, but as far as mainline flying is concerned it'll just be a large spoke.

Well that's only half the equation, though. On the other side of cost is revenue. LAX may have higher cost per enplanement (although I doubt LAX is all that outrageously expensive compared to some of AA's other hubs), but I would also bet that LAX has substantially higher revenue.

LAX may not "steal" any "routes" from PHX, although I would not at all be surprised to see some relatively small portion of PHXcapacity shifted to LAX. Nonetheless, I agree with the general sentiment that most of any capacity shifted out of PHX likely won't be shifted to LAX. Most of any capacity shifted to other hubs will likely be shifted to DFW.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 50):Past history has shown that when two hubs are located in close proximity to each other (as a result of an airline merger); one of them eventually gets downgraded

Every situation is different. UA doesn't seem to have any trouble making EWR and IAD work, and those are quite close.

The key is that JFK and PHL will serve two very different, and complimentary, purposes in the combined network.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 50):If there were no slot restrictions over at JFK, this merger would've definitely lead to PHL being downgraded to a focus city.

No. I disagree. Even if there were no slot limitations at JFK, JFK could still never be the kind of hub PHL is. JFK splits its catchment area too dramatically with other airports that are preferred by business travelers in shorthaul markets and generally better-situated for large portions of the local market. PHL does not suffer that problem - it caters to a smaller local market, but it also has that market all to itself. And, the hub airline in PHL (now US, soon AA) also pretty much owns the market - something else that could never be said for the NYC metro market.

Quoting commavia (Reply 55):Every situation is different. UA doesn't seem to have any trouble making EWR and IAD work, and those are quite close.

You missed my later quote in the same reply, reposted below:

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 50):If EWR had no restrictions, UA would eventually would have had to chose between there or IAD if one of those hubs had to be let go for economic reasons.

Again, the majority of the recent airline mergers are by and large consolidation driven regardless of any spin airline execs. throw out there as means of getting people on board. While two nearby hubs for two separate carriers has economic relevance for each individual carrier, that notion goes completely out the window when the two carriers merge/combine their operations. While not right away, one of those overlapped hubs eventually gets reduced or right-sized. How long and how soon are subject the economic conditions of the time.

And I will still stand by my claim (and I will take it to eternity) that if no slot restrictions existed at the NYC-area airports; any carrier w/a hub in the NYC-area along with another nearby hub, the latter hub will eventually take a hit.

For US alone, their PHL hub is definitely a cash cow for them no doubt about it; but when combined w/another carrier that has a hub close by, it may not be as big of a cash cow when compared w/another nearby hub in the combined carrier's network.

Fortunately for PHL, unlike PIT, there's enough O&D demand out there that I don't believe that a combined AA/US will ever turn PHL into just a spoke city. And even if they did, if demand for airline service exists for that airport; other carrier(s) *note the plural* will come in to fill in any voids. I've stated this before and I'll state it again; not every airport serving a major metropolitan city is or has to be a hub for a particular carrier. A hub is not a birthright.

Bottom line here, and I believe everybody will agree w/this; let's wait and see what happens and revisit this roughly 5 years from now and we'll see by then whose prediction comes the closest to reality.

I just can't possibly see AA reducing PHL hub status. They need some kind of northeast hub since they don't use NYC, and DCA is too crowded.
We need some connecting flights up here in New England with AA.

I think you guys are overreaching, PHL can take as many trans cons for TATL as American can feed trough it. Because the OD market pf PHL is smaller than NYC is of little or NO consequence. If flights to Europe are connected via PHL??
They can make JUST as much as any OTHER Hub. UAL has the big hub at EWR,, BUT ! IAD is Just as important as a hub in as much as it's prestigious in Govt,Military, Diplomatic and Intelligence. and Wash. DC is not as large as PHL. It's going to remain a major hub for UAL as PHL should remain for AMR. Not everything should be measured in OD.
American can't GET the gates and terminal space at JFK to replace PHL. if trans cons are routed to PHL to connect with originating TATL flights the same as UAL routes trans cons to feed our Pacific/ Asian service out of both SFO and LAX
And?? Were AMR to reduce service TOPHL then they might be well served by building up their western resources and increase Pacific/Asian service as they should be doing as a PREMIER USA In Airline. IMHO of course

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 57):Again, the majority of the recent airline mergers are by and large consolidation driven regardless of any spin airline execs. throw out there as means of getting people on board. While two nearby hubs for two separate carriers has economic relevance for each individual carrier, that notion goes completely out the window when the two carriers merge/combine their operations. While not right away, one of those overlapped hubs eventually gets reduced or right-sized. How long and how soon are subject the economic conditions of the time.

And I simply do not agree with any such hard and fast rules. Every situation is different.

So, for example, I agree that no airline could support two close, overlapping hubs in a low-yielding region like the southwest. Having hubs in, say, PHX and SLC would never work. But he northeast is a whole different animal. It has a huge concentration of premium demand, a huge concentration of population, and severe and intractable capacity constraints. Throwing out hypotheticals as if these realities don't exist is rather meaningless.

In the case of PHL and JFK, the two operations serve two fundamentally different purpose, and one could never replace the purpose of the other. JFK, which AA calls a "cornerstone," is optimized primarily for the massive New York O&D market, and for connections between international (primarily European) markets and the largest U.S. O&D centers that can support nonstops to JFK. PHL is completely different. PHL can never draw on that large a local market - it's a big metro area, but small compared to NYC. It is a "hub" - in the truest sense of the word - with lots and lots of flights, spaced throughout the day, heading to destinations in every direction, both big and small. JFK could never be that - even without a single slot restriction - because JFK has to compete with EWR and LGA. Period.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 57):And I will still stand by my claim (and I will take it to eternity) that if no slot restrictions existed at the NYC-area airports; any carrier w/a hub in the NYC-area along with another nearby hub, the latter hub will eventually take a hit.

Well, again, these hypotheticals are rather meaningless, as not only do slot restrictions exist at all three NYC metro airports, but all three airports exist! And they compete with each other. Vigorously. As such, and given the geographic location of the three airports and the inherent capacity limitations of the size of each airfield, the only NYC metro airport that can ever truly function as a hub in the same way PHL does is EWR. That's it. LGA never can - it cannot be an international gateway. JFK never can - it is relatively preferred for shorthaul the way LGA and EWR are.

Thus, I will stand by my claim that regardless of slot restrictions, the inherent economic, demographic, geographica nd competitive realities of the NYC metro airports means that only EWR can ever be a true, omni-directional, throughout-the-day, domestic-and-international hub. Short of that, the next closest hub in the northeast capable of functioning in that role is PHL. And as such, in the case of AA, it won't matter that PHL and JFK are so close - they will serve two entirely different purposes for the combined airline.

It's interesting to see with BOS-LHR going all BA you would think there would need to be a corresponding increase in AA metal TATL somewhere else or AA will get a smaller share of the total revenue pie. Or maybe the addition of the US flights from CLT and PHL will compensate.

Quoting KD5MDK (Reply 62):The US 762s do though and need to be replaced.

I suspect AA 763s (and maybe some international-configured 757s) will do the trick perfectly.

Quoting KD5MDK (Reply 62):It's interesting to see with BOS-LHR going all BA you would think there would need to be a corresponding increase in AA metal TATL somewhere else or AA will get a smaller share of the total revenue pie. Or maybe the addition of the US flights from CLT and PHL will compensate.

Not sure how much smaller AA's piece of the pie will be. They split revenue with BA across the Atlantic.

Won't the 5 A332s for this year arrive faster than the merger, more or less? I would expect that to be the first aircraft that replaces the US 762s, just as the A321Ts replace the AA ones. Next year the fleets can be rationalized, but the aircraft replacements are going faster than that.

As far as revenue pie, I thought it was split based on share of ASMs across the pond. So if AA reduces their flying, they might be 38% instead of 40% of ASMs (or whatever) and so get less of the revenue.

MIA is going to be hurt bad by this merger. MIA will loose most of its Latin American traffic to CLT. CLT will basically become what MIA is today with regards to Latin America, and MIA will be relegated to merely a focus city for AA.

I will have what you are smoking....Nothing can replace MIA ask DL at ATL they have a large operation but not nearly as large as MIA all due to the location of MIA. CLT will loose some flying to MIA not gain

MIA is going to be hurt bad by this merger. MIA will loose most of its Latin American traffic to CLT. CLT will basically become what MIA is today with regards to Latin America, and MIA will be relegated to merely a focus city for AA.

Yet another ridiculous statement by this member, a.net should really monitor membership and leave it to the 21 and over set. MIA will be hurt by the merger and lose Latin American traffic to CLT....I've heard it all.

It will be interesting to see whether AA brings back N/S service between SFO-BOS after the merger. Both are strong revenue markets for AA and AA will be a big player in the BOS market again after the merger.

Even with the cutbacks in Boston, I think it gets a bit of a artificial boost thanks to the London flight and longer distance flights generating higher total revenue for AA there.
Compare this to DCA which is lower on the AA revenue list, but has higher flight activity count compared to BOS, albeit more shorter ones.

But ultimately with neither BOS or SFO being corner stones I'm am not sure the carrier would look to link them still.

Other interesting imo how strong MIA is. Less than half the flights of DFW, almost 50% less than ORD but it sits at the #2 spot revenue wise.

Also with AA focusing so much capacity into small number of international markets I guess no surprise we see likes of LHR, GRU, NRT, EZE, GIG and CDG make the top-20.

I'd be curious to see if Aviation Daily makes a similar profile chart for US.

Quoting EricR (Reply 76):It will be interesting to see whether AA brings back N/S service between SFO-BOS after the merger. Both are strong revenue markets for AA and AA will be a big player in the BOS market again after the merger.

I have long been of the opinion that BOS-SFO is the single biggest gaping "point-to-point" gap in the AA network. AA is reasonably strong (as non-hub carriers go) at both ends, and will be even moreso post-merger. I realize the competition is intense - particularly with B6 and VX - but this seems, at least to me, to be precisely the type of market that AA should be able to excel in with the right cost structure and the right fleet, both of which AA now has or soon will have. I could see ~0730 and 1730 westbound departures, and 0800 and 2200 eastbound departures, with A319s.

With a new cost structure and a merger, the new AA will be able to face new challenges, and this means that if they want to become stronger where they are now weaker, they will need to focus not only in DFW or MIA, but also in other places with direct competition. ORD, LAX and JFK are obvious, and a lot has been talked about them, but what about Washington, D.C.?

1) International expansion

Oneworld only has one international flight from Washington D.C.: LON (BA) (and AA codeshares with EY's AUH flight).

When AA and US merge, their presence in Washington D.C. will be considerable thanks to the focus city that US has at DCA (US is the nº1 carrier and AA the nº2). It is clear that UA has a fortress hub at IAD, and that US/AA will never have any kind of hub nor focus city at IAD, but the question is whether you think that AA/US could launch some key international flights from IAD to other Oneworld hubs. Could the local FF base together with the feed from the other end make some key international flights work? (Just like DL's flights to NRT and AMS from non-hub airports).

I'm thinking about routes like IAD-GRU, IAD-MAD or even IAD-NRT.

2) Domestic expansion

On the domestic side, the largest Metro Areas (within the perimeter restriction) without non-stop service from DCA are IAH, ATL, CLE, MKE, OKC and RIC (too short). In fact, AA/US will fly to the largest 10 MSA from all of their hubs except DCA-HOU, DCA-ATL and LAX-ATL. I know these routes are hard, but if AA wants to serve all the key business routes from their hubs, they should launch them with some large regional jets, just like DL has entered in other routes that nobody thought they would, like LGA-ORD/DFW, or like AA resuming service from LGA to ATL or CLT.

Hmm. If they keep price down, IAH or ATL could work. Both of those are flying straight into the fortress. Add in the WN presence in those cities and it gets hard. They should do a study and launch at least one of these cities, but need to choose carefully.

DL and US fly LGA-DCA. I see no reason to up the schedule on that route. Just keep the US Airways (and shuttle) flights. Preferably under a cool new name.

Why fly DCA-IAH when you can fly DCA-HOU? I realize the airports are pretty far apart, but flying into IAH is a really tough proposition.

I think service to MAD will depend on how IB works out, which we should find out well before the merger finalizes. In addition to the BA flights to IAD, another option would be to boost service to BWI. Or if you want to be really innovative, codeshare on Amtrak DCUnion->PHL->Europe.

Quoting realsim (Reply 83):I'm thinking about routes like IAD-GRU, IAD-MAD or even IAD-NRT.

While I do like the idea of intl flights from IAD (MAD & GRU have the best chance), I think AA needs to aggressively focus on LAX, and JFK before attempting an invasion of IAD. New destinations like Africa, HKG, SYD, and a return to DEL would bring more value to AA's overall network.

We will soon have LAX-GRU, and hopefully LAX will see more Asian/pacific routes in the near future.

Quoting commavia (Reply 80):
Quoting EricR (Reply 76):
It will be interesting to see whether AA brings back N/S service between SFO-BOS after the merger. Both are strong revenue markets for AA and AA will be a big player in the BOS market again after the merger.

I have long been of the opinion that BOS-SFO is the single biggest gaping "point-to-point" gap in the AA network. AA is reasonably strong (as non-hub carriers go) at both ends, and will be even moreso post-merger. I realize the competition is intense - particularly with B6 and VX - but this seems, at least to me, to be precisely the type of market that AA should be able to excel in with the right cost structure and the right fleet, both of which AA now has or soon will have. I could see ~0730 and 1730 westbound departures, and 0800 and 2200 eastbound departures, with A319s.

IMO it was a big mistake they exited this market - but then we could say that about many markets under the old AA regime. From Calif to Boston, the loads are LAXBOS but the higher yield is SFOBOS.

Quoting EricR (Reply 39):DL said the same thing when going through their merger with NW. It is all PR fodder to get the merger approved.

Except DL had been shrinking CVG long before the merger, and NW was doing the same with MEM before the merger. Yes, the statement was PR fodder. But, people had been expecting further downsizing at both CVG and MEM before the merger was announced.

So, it made no sense for DL to keep CVG, when DTW is less than 300 miles away. And, it made no sense for DL to keep MEM, with ATL, the largest hub in the world, relatively close.

AA hasn't been shrinking any hubs (although ORD has seen a number of routes shift from mainline to Eagle). STL was closed about 2 years ago.

US hasn't done any shrinking of hubs since it closed the PIT hub several years ago.

I certainly expect some shifting of flying, but I don't see AA closing any of the current AA/US hubs in the next few years.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 90):Except DL had been shrinking CVG long before the merger, and NW was doing the same with MEM before the merger.

But I do not think they would not have made nearly the same amount of cuts had they not merged. For example, do you think DL would have reduced CVG to levels they are today had DL not merged with NW? Keep in mind, DL only had hubs at ATL, JFK, CVG, and SLC at the time. CVG served a valuable role pre-NW merger.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 90):So, it made no sense for DL to keep CVG, when DTW is less than 300 miles away. And, it made no sense for DL to keep MEM, with ATL, the largest hub in the world, relatively close.

AA hasn't been shrinking any hubs (although ORD has seen a number of routes shift from mainline to Eagle). STL was closed about 2 years ago.

Isn't AA/US faced with this exact same issue post merger? They too will have hubs in very close proximity to each other and will need to make similar decisions.

Quoting realsim (Reply 83):but the question is whether you think that AA/US could launch some key international flights from IAD to other Oneworld hubs. Could the local FF base together with the feed from the other end make some key international flights work? (Just like DL's flights to NRT and AMS from non-hub airports).

I've mentioned this before in other threads. With the new large AA customer base in the DC area, I would expect to see some international growth. Although, technically, AA does operate IAD-LHR albeit on BA metal.

Quoting EricR (Reply 92): But I do not think they would not have made nearly the same amount of cuts had they not merged. For example, do you think DL would have reduced CVG to levels they are today had DL not merged with NW? Keep in mind, DL only had hubs at ATL, JFK, CVG, and SLC at the time. CVG served a valuable role pre-NW merger.

The only reason we were being shrink a bit was because of the economy driving demand to the ground over here. Now that things are picking up business leaders are getting pissed...I can't tell you how many people stood up and cheered when they announded F9 was beginning service to CVG.

Quoting EricR (Reply 92):Isn't AA/US faced with this exact same issue post merger? They too will have hubs in very close proximity to each other and will need to make similar decisions.

True, but then, EWR and IAD are fairly close, and United doesn't seem to be in any hurry to close either one of those. Considering that JFK still has slots, there is some limit to what AA/US can do. Sending traffic out of the Northeast to PHL, rather than JFK, makes sense.

By the same token, LAX probably skews more towards O&D, with the connecting traffic going to Asia and the Pacifi Rim. I can see PHX losing some flights to LAX and/or DFW, but the operation 5 years from now isn't going to be service solely to the remaining hubs.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 96):IIRC, US shrank and dropped its LAS hub (courtesy of the 2005 merger w/HP) a few years ago.

JFK will see probably 15-20 more departures than what exists today. Most of those will be international and domestic long-haul. You will see significant aircraft upgauging there. Some cities with 1 ERJ flight per day, will be eliminated and replaced with a mainline flight to a larger market that feeds into the international flights there. JFK's focus will be on O&D traffic, not hub traffic. Obviously, the upgauging of flights will allow for more passenger traffic passing through there to complement the O&D traffic. But the cities served from JFK will be larger markets. You will not see a SDF or DAY-JFK flight.

PHL will remain a hub focused on the East Coast. It will lose flights (mainly to ORD), but still have flights to Europe and the major markets in the West. CLT will lose some Carribean destinations but probably pick up some new domestic ones. In fact, I believe that CLT will be the second largest hub in the system after DFW. DCA will most likely have to give up some slots. But RDU/BNA/STL are served by both carriers. Plus, with ORD and DFW becoming transfer options, there will be less need for flights to PHL. With hourly flights to LGA, fewer flights to JFK would be necessary (mainly to connect to JFK's intl flights).

ORD will probably gain flights. Taking some of them away from PHL (Northeast to Midwest traffic). As well as adding flights to cyphon away some business from United. MIA and DFW will remain as is.

LAX will gain flights. US is moving to T-3 and AA will be getting 4 gates at TBIT. Plus, AA slaps its codeshare on a lot of AS flights there. That gives plenty of possibilities for AA to increase service and destinations from one of the largest O&D markets in the country.

PHX will no longer be a hub. Almost every flight US has flying into there comes from a destination served by AA from LAX and/or DFW. The only exceptions I believe are Long Beach, Burbank, Yuma, Flagstaff, and San Luis Obispo. What will remain is service to the hubs, point-to-point destinations with high O&D levels, maybe a few cities in Mexico. I'm not sure if flights to Hawaii would remain.

What remains unclear is BOS. The merger picks up a large US FF base there, particularly from the LGA/DCA shuttles. I wonder if the new airline will capitalize on that. With a large portion of Europe within the range of a 757 from BOS, I wonder if they might take a risk and start service to a few more European cities from there.

There are a few more US destinations in the west not served by ORD or DFW. GEG and BOI.

I can't see PHX being reduced to nothing other than existing AA/US hubs. PHX will be right sized more than any other hub but look how long its taking Delta to completely de hub CVG and MEM.

I am also doubtful that CLT will lose carribbean flights. It will depend on how easily that traffic can be recaptured over MIA. If CLT has a significant amount of unique traffic flows, then cancellation makes no sense. Plus I am betting CLT to carribbean is profitable and canceling wont give AA any additional pricing power.

I agree that MIA and DFW are likely to be unchanged. ORD will see significant gauge changes. Fewer 50 seaters. Markets like BDL might go back to mainline but certainly large RJ. The E75s, 319s and E90s will be a huge benefit for ORD.

I'd like to see more flying from CLT to the Midwest such as GRR, PIA, MSN and MLI, FWA. I think some if the long RJ flights to the SE from DFW might have to upgraded to larger RJ or cut. Makes no sense to fly a 50 seater 750 miles or longer.

I think there could be some gauge swaps between MIA and PHL with 763s in PHL and A330s in MIA. The A321s might a good plane for MIA as well.

There are a few more US destinations in the west not served by ORD or DFW. GEG and BOI..

There are a total of 13 destinations. Below is the list. The major domestic cities on this list were served by AA up until recently. The remainder are small cities that can easily be served via LAX or DFW or will be dropped entirely. You can draw your own conclusions, but it does not present a strong case for PHX.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 100):I can't see PHX being reduced to nothing other than existing AA/US hubs. PHX will be right sized more than any other hub but look how long its taking Delta to completely de hub CVG and MEM.

Yet another clueless comment. You cannot compare CVG and MEM to PHX. The PHX metro area added 140,000 people in the last two years and climbed from the #14 metro area in the US to the #13 metro area with 4.3M people.

PHX trails only Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, Boston-Cambridge-Newton, Atlanta, Miami, Washington DC, Philadelphia, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, LA, New York. All of these cities are hubs for legacy carriers, with the exception of Boston which has Jet Blue.

And I don't want to hear anyone bring up Las Vegas, which has only 2M people and ranks #31. It doesn't compare.

What you look for in a stagnant economy is growth. And you won't find much better growth than what Phoenix metro is experiencing. Will some flight move, sure. But you can't tell me I'd have to go through LAX or DFW to get to LAS, SNA, SJC, RNO, SEA, JFK, BOS etc. Not happening.

I think PHX and CLT will fill a big pinch with this merger.AA has 190 OLD Mad Dogs it's ready to shed to same money.
I can see the new management shift a lot of Airbus flying from PHX and CLT to other AA hubs to retire MD-80's.
This will save a lot of money saved on fuel and you can just stream line connections to other Hubs.
To pick up some slack I can see some PHX and CLT flying move more to RJ's.
If I were RJET I would seriously try and work out a a better Deal with the new AA.
RJET is trying to unload F9. Why not unload F9's 59 Airbuses to AA in trade for more RJ flying with the New AA.
I think this would be a win win for all 3. F9 staff would just fold into RJET and AA could just convert F9 planes to AA.
That's another 50 OLD MD's that can be put out to scrap or sold to Allegiant air.
wnfg

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 99):PHX will no longer be a hub. Almost every flight US has flying into there comes from a destination served by AA from LAX and/or DFW. The only exceptions I believe are Long Beach, Burbank, Yuma, Flagstaff, and San Luis Obispo. What will remain is service to the hubs, point-to-point destinations with high O&D levels, maybe a few cities in Mexico. I'm not sure if flights to Hawaii would remain.

I was talking to a friend of mine who flies for AA. He thinks that PHX will have to stay around. AA's terminal at LAX isn't that big, and doesn't have a tremendous amout of space to expand. Even if you shifted some international flights to the TBIT, you still have to shift the US flights from T1 to T4. Based on the amount of flights to PHL, CLT, and PHX that US flies, that just doesn't leave a lot of room.

By the same token, AA's operation at DFW is going to be partially constrained by the renovation project. When Gates A1 through A16 open, then the airport authority will start on the next block of gates.

Further, Phoenix is a larger metro area than St. Louis, with a lot more business traffic. That isn't to say that the number of flights won't be reduced over time, but it probably won't be dehubbed.

I'm starting to laugh at the dehub Phx posts. All the facts appear to be ignored in place of arguing it will be so because LA and DFW are bigger. Let's not forget that PHX was the only US hub mentioned by name in the press announcement as maintaining hub status and corporate presence. Will things change with flights/destinations being adjusted? Yes. Welcome to the airline business. It happens all the time.

Quoting PHXFlyer16 (Reply 102):Yet another clueless comment. You cannot compare CVG and MEM to PHX. The PHX metro area added 140,000 people in the last two years and climbed from the #14 metro area in the US to the #13 metro area with 4.3M people.

Do MEM and CVG have a strong WN presence there? But look at what those two hubs have become in the new DL: breeding grounds for regional jets.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 104):I was talking to a friend of mine who flies for AA. He thinks that PHX will have to stay around. AA's terminal at LAX isn't that big, and doesn't have a tremendous amout of space to expand. Even if you shifted some international flights to the TBIT, you still have to shift the US flights from T1 to T4. Based on the amount of flights to PHL, CLT, and PHX that US flies, that just doesn't leave a lot of room.

US is moving to T3 at LAX. AA is gaining 4 gates at TBIT. So the new AA will have gates at T4, TBIT, T3, and the "eagle's nest". Not to mention the AS codeshares out of T6 (which include GEG and BOI among others).

Quoting ckfred (Reply 104):Let's not forget that PHX was the only US hub mentioned by name in the press announcement as maintaining hub status and corporate presence

I kind of remember similar words being said about PIT when the HP/US merger was transpiring.

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 110):
US is moving to T3 at LAX. AA is gaining 4 gates at TBIT. So the new AA will have gates at T4, TBIT, T3, and the "eagle's nest". Not to mention the AS codeshares out of T6 (which include GEG and BOI among others).

Unless something has changed, I think you are incorrect about AA in T3.

Quoting wnflyguy:Usairways, LAWA and WN reached a short term agreement on T1. Usairways will use gates 8,10 and gate 6 between 9pm and 7am and give up 50% of their ticket counter and baggage claim space. Usairways is now going to relocate to terminal 2 once all international Ops are moved to the new TBIT in 2yrs.wnfg

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 111):Unless something has changed, I think you are incorrect about AA in T3.

Something has changed...

Terminal Renovations:
The proposed Lease requires Southwest to make renovations in Terminal 1 as outlined in Schedule
1, Attachment A of the Lease, including but not limited to (i) relocating US Airways Inc., from
Terminal 1 to Terminal 3 to enable renovations to Terminal 1

Terminal Renovations:
The proposed Lease requires Southwest to make renovations in Terminal 1 as outlined in Schedule
1, Attachment A of the Lease, including but not limited to (i) relocating US Airways Inc., from
Terminal 1 to Terminal 3 to enable renovations to Terminal 1

Perhaps, aaway can answer these questions:

Is Qantas planning to move all of its T4 flights to the new TBIT? (I think they we will be the ones running the oneworld lounge in the new TBIT.)

I've heard that AA also wants to move its international flights to TBIT. When could that realistically happen? (The T4 connector, which was approved by LAWA on Monday, will take 3 years to build.)

If AA and Qantas vacated gates 41 and 43 at T4, could AA convert those two gates into three domestic gates?

Could AA reasonably absorb US flights at T4 with three more domestic gates?

Quoting Austwin (Reply 105):Let's not forget that PHX was the only US hub mentioned by name in the press announcement as maintaining hub status and corporate presence.

I wouldn't read too much into that - PHX was mentioned my name merely because it's losing the HQ, which is a rather symbolic loss.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 114):I've heard that AA also wants to move its international flights to TBIT. When could that realistically happen? (The T4 connector, which was approved by LAWA on Monday, will take 3 years to build.)

If AA and Qantas vacated gates 41 and 43 at T4, could AA convert those two gates into three domestic gates?

Could AA reasonably absorb US flights at T4 with three more domestic gates?

I think AA has an opportunity to reconfigure T4 and consolidate all of the post-merger operations (at least mainline) there.

Specifically, if AA had the opportunity to move all of its international arrivals/departures and all widebody arrivals/departures (whether domestic or international) over to TBIT, that alone would free up a not-insignificant amount of capacity in T4. And that's before AA reconfigured gate space at T4 for all narrowbodies instead of widebodies, which could likely buy them another 1-2 gates. With 1-2 more gates, I think AA could consolidate the PHL/CLT/PHX departures into T4. It would be tight, with little margin for error in OSO, but of course that's basically how AA's been at T4 for years.

Holy crap every week a new breed of anti-PHX comments sprouts, with people ignoring the big picture:

PHX is a huge draw from all over the region. The primary airport for a state which is growing at an exponential rate, the 6th largest city in the USA (depending on numbers), after PHL (so PHL based off this shouldn't be dehubbed either!)

I know DFW is larger but it serves that market. PHX has its own market. PHX is needed for AA because LAX is not good enough for AA. LAX has its own purpose. PHX may lose a flight here or there, but almost every analyst I've talked to and gotten emails from in the PHX area say this merger is good for them. People are already preparing for an Asian flight which PHX has been begging for for quite some time. The Airport, Mayor Stanton, and the County, and even Jan Brewer received contractual and verbal commitment from Doug that the hub will never become a hub similar to MEM or CVG. We are not like those cities. I know for a fact, I am in CVG right now as we speak (well, a ways away from there, in my house, but you know my point.) CVG is a city going downhill, losing population. The generation which I represent in Cincinnati is up and ready to leave as soon as they get out of college. Of the 300 or so people I associated with regularly in high school, about 20 are all that's left here, and 10 of them are actually up in Oxford at Miami University, 30 miles away.

PHX on the other hand is growing like no other. Construction is picking up again, people are doing everything they can to move into PHX. Businesses included, fleeing the harsh taxes that California places on the wealthy and on businesses. Governor Brewer is probably the only gov in this country who is welcoming these bigwigs with open arms, and with that comes demand at the airport.

Some can probably recall when HP was a leisure based airline, and when they merged with US that element went away. WN does somewhat of a job with leisure stuff but those who can't necessarily afford the leisure aspect use G4 out of AZA. That airport serves its role. PHX serves connecting travelers, business people from all over the globe, and people like me who call PHX their second home. (or the excessively rich who like the resorts up in Scottsdale.)

PHX is not going anywhere. And if AA decided to pull an axe on PHX, well, let's just say F9, UA, DL, WN, and many others will swoop right in with flight additions left and right and make themselves comfy at PHX.

Nobody ever debated that lots of people want to fly into or out of Phoenix. The problem is the fare said people are paying, and the operating costs of the airline carrying them.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 117):The primary airport for a state which is growing at an exponential rate

2.5% since 2010 isn't exponential. In the same period, Texas has grown 3.6%.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 117):the 6th largest city in the USA (depending on numbers), after PHL (so PHL based off this shouldn't be dehubbed either!)

Raw city size is rather unimportant. Metropolitan area and catchment area is what's critical. And by that measure, PHX is far from 6th.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 117):PHX is needed for AA because LAX is not good enough for AA. LAX has its own purpose.

Still stuck on LAX. As many have repeated over and over, it's not about LAX. It's mostly about DFW. And most of all it's about PHX itself.

Perhaps repeating it over and over may seem to make it so, but no, PHX is not "needed" by AA. Perhaps it's a "nice to have" for a combined airline, but it certainly isn't a "need to have" at all.

There is virtually no network role the PHX hub now serves that is not already served as well or better by another AA hub. The single only network role I can think of would be offering connections between small California communities and points east. That's it. And given the substantially higher costs of a merged airline compared with USAirways' existing costs, I doubt that will be enough to support a hub of the scale USAirways now operates there.

I just don't see how it's economically possible. I doubt the combined AA will ever have the pricing power in PHX to raise fares commensurate with the higher costs. That means reduced capacity. Not a mere spoke with flights to the hubs perhaps, but a "hub" with 250+ daily flights of which 2/3 are mainline seems totally inconceivable.

At least for me, personally, I've yet to hear anything that has convinced me otherwise on the above calculus.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 117):almost every analyst I've talked to and gotten emails from in the PHX area say this merger is good for them.

"Analysts" have sent emails. Okay.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 117):The Airport, Mayor Stanton, and the County, and even Jan Brewer received contractual and verbal commitment from Doug that the hub will never become a hub similar to MEM or CVG.

I'm intrigued. Please elaborate.

Doug Parker has made a "contractual" commitment that the hub will "never" become [insert alleged commitment here]?

I doubt that quite highly, but if that is the case, his this been reported anywhere other than here on A.net? A standard, non-binding promise made to politicians powerless to stop anything doesn't count as a "contractual" commitment. It merely counts as a nice quote for the local paper. Just ask Memphis, Cincinnati, St Louis and Pittsburgh.

And if, somehow, Doug Parker has managed to sign a legally-enforceable contract with the state, county and/or city that does bind a merged airline to something, does said contract have a specifically enumerated period of performance? Are there permissible "off ramps" like the contract United signed with CLE? Does this contract mandate capacity, departures, leaseholds on gates and facilities?

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 117):And if AA decided to pull an axe on PHX, well, let's just say F9, UA, DL, WN, and many others will swoop right in with flight additions left and right and make themselves comfy at PHX.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 117):And if AA decided to pull an axe on PHX, well, let's just say F9, UA, DL, WN, and many others will swoop right in with flight additions left and right and make themselves comfy at PHX.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 118): How many legacy flights have been added at CVG in the past 5 years?

I can vouch for this, US with service to DCA, AC to YYZ, and UA adding to existing DEN and increasing capacity to ORD. F9 arriving, and other airlines with proposed routes, such as US to PHX (according to one source, which is purely insider info, it's still in the works from Cincy business leaders.)

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 118): Besides for that it is "big," why would PHX be different?

You answered your own question with a question. it's because PHX has the demand. While CVG has some demand, it has no where near as much as PHX.

Right now, US files 6x/day nonstop in the PDX-PHX market. In addition, AS flies 2x/day and WN flies 3x/day.

In the merged AA/US network, which cities with any traffic volume would be better served by AA via PHX vs. LAX or DFW or ORD (which it was announced today will have its 2x/day service on PDX-ORD by AA restored shortly)?

Honestly, I don't see many. AS, AA's codeshare partner, offers nonstop and connecting service to any destination of value in the PNW, Nevada and California. WN has begun moving passengers over DEN in the past couple of years at the expense of flights to SLC from here.

Where will all of these passengers be heading which will make PHX a viable transit point for AA passengers from PDX in the post-merger era? I'd make a bet that between the 11 nonstop services plus connecting opportunities, the current service overserves the local PDEW between PDX and PHX, so there's got to be either vital and efficient connections, or AA will pull some of the 6 flights down in the PDX-PHX market post-merger. Many other west coast cities are in the very same position.

Check the fares between PDX and WAS for tomorrow (Saturday). Except for one connection on VX, US via PHX is at lease around $200 cheaper than the competition for a one-way ticket. US fills planes to/from/via PHX because of low fares that will be unsustainable post-merger. That demand will vanish and route via more convenient hubs.

It doesn't simply serve "that" market, it's a hub that does probably 90% of what PHX does, and this is a real threat to the PHX hub. IMHO I don't think AA will set out to de-hub PHX, but PHX will simply have to hold it's own as with CLE and United...and whatever it isn't able to sustain will go away.

Oh c'mon man, I don't want to hijack the thread but how many times have we hashed this out? The Cincinnati area is doing perfectly fine, it's the largest metropolitan area in the tri-state and the population has grown by 6% in the last ten years making it one of the top growing areas in the US. Yes the city government of Cincinnati proper is crazy and thus the only county in the metro area to lose population was Hamilton County/Cincinnati, but basically no one lives in Cincinnati, it's a commuter town, everyone lives in the suburbs and commutes to downtown. The area has a stable, diverse economy with low unemployment, is essentially the consumer packaged goods center of the world and has a budding banking sector (5/3, First Financial, Fidelity, Citigroup...etc). I know you're simply trying to make a point about Phoenix, but since the Cincinnati region is in fact healthy and growing, it's a falsity to try and foil Phoenix with Cincinnati.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 117):The generation which I represent in Cincinnati is up and ready to leave as soon as they get out of college.

Different patterns for different parts of the area. I could also point out that most of the people I went to high school with went "away" to college (i.e. UK, UofL, OU), and 90%+ are returning to the area. It's all anecdotal in the end though as the numbers don't lie...6% population growth, and a not-so-insignificant amount are of the younger generation owing to the fact that Cincinnati is a growing marketing/market research and tech hub.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 119):Besides for that it is "big," why would PHX be different?

For as big as it is, it's also getting even larger over the years. Not to mention, but what about the economy in Phoenix? Isn't it pretty strong? (i.e. strong O&D business travel). I don't know about MEM, but with the exception of PIT (growing economy and population) STL and CVG are rather stagnant...

MIA will be dehubbed... Right. I'm black and Irish, and I have purple hair!

WN,US and LAWA over the last 5 years have had many proposals on were to relocate US airways.
I think US finally agreed to move to terminal 3 only because they knew a deal AA was coming.
Personally I don't think Us Airways will stay long term or relocate into terminal 3 at ALL.
I can see Us Airways drop all main line LAX-PHX flying to RJ's. PHL and CLT drop to 3 flights each making it easier to slot them into terminal 4.
wnfg

I'm not clear on the reaction to the list of airports only served by PHX now. Is the idea that those markets are going to be completely abandoned, or that they will be served via DFW with the consolidated market?

PHX will have to prove itself in the new airline. And do a god job of doing so. Just about every city pair served by US via PHX can be done in the new carrier via DFW, LAX, and even ORD. The only excptions are a few small airports in CA and AZ. Spokane and Boise are now code-shared with AS out of LAX. OAK? Is it really a money-maker for US that it needs to stay? Or can those flights be shifted over to DFW and LAX? Right now, PHX works as a hub for US because that is the only hub it operates west of the eastern time zone. Now there will be ORD, DFW, and LAX added into the mix. The new airline will take a hard lokk at PHX's numbers. Service to markets that have high O&D traffic will most likely stay, but most likely with fewer daily frequencies. But there are some routes out of PHX that only exist because they feed into there for connecting purposes. Buh-Bye!! As for LAX and the notion by some that it doesn't fit with AA... then why has AA made an aggressive push to increase service and add destinations out of there over the past couple of years? Unlike PHX, LAX has the potential to increase frequencies to new destinations. AA has put in a request to start GRU service, and many expect ICN to be added in a couple of years. Can PHX say the same? No. And if DP made a contractual agreement with AZ not to de-hub PHX, then AA's shareholders and creditors should replace him with a new CEO. No one running an airline should make an agreement like that unless it adds value (i.e. profit) to the company. AZ officials have no deciding factor as to whether or not this merger gets approved.

Quoting wnflyguy (Reply 124):I think US finally agreed to move to terminal 3 only because they knew a deal AA was coming.
Personally I don't think Us Airways will stay long term or relocate into terminal 3 at ALL.

Gate space at LAX is a treasured commodity. I doubt that the new airline would abandon those T3 gates so easily. That would be throwing away potential. Just look at UA there, they use gates in T6, T7, and T8. Yes, they are all connected airside. But AA has a shuttlebus service in place that goes to TBIT, T6, and the Eagle's Nest from T4. In fact, it also used to go to T3 when AS was located there.

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 127):I doubt that the new airline would abandon those T3 gates so easily. That would be throwing away potential.

Given AA's rich history of strategic blunders, I would seriously hope that the new AA will take advantage of any additional gates whether by operating flights or subleasing/trading. AA would have to convince VX or B6 to move to T2 in order to significantly increase operations in T3.

Quoting wnflyguy (Reply 124):I can see Us Airways drop all main line LAX-PHX flying to RJ'

Sorry but that would be a horrific decision, with the immediate result of surrendering the route to WN. While I dont have much faith in Doug Parker's strategic planning ability, I do feel safe that he would laugh if such a recommendation came to his desk.

Quoting miaintl (Reply 66):MIA is going to be hurt bad by this merger. MIA will loose most of its Latin American traffic to CLT. CLT will basically become what MIA is today with regards to Latin America, and MIA will be relegated to merely a focus city for AA.

What a ridiculous assumption! AA plans to continue increasing flights to Latin America from the MIA hub. Plus, AA will code-share with LATAM Airlines; which is the third largest carrier operating into MIA. LATAM operates flights into MIA from BOG, BSB, CCS, CNF, EZE, GIG, GRU, GYE, LIM, MAO, PUJ, SCL and UIO!

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 87):While I do like the idea of intl flights from IAD (MAD & GRU have the best chance)

Also, LA has ATI with AA and is very interested in launching LIM-IAD in order to increase competition with both AV and CM.

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 126):AA has put in a request to start GRU service, and many expect ICN to be added in a couple of years.

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 129):Also, LA has ATI with AA and is very interested in launching LIM-IAD in order to increase competition with both AV and CM.

Launching IAD to OW hubs would be the safest way to build a presence in DC. Even if AA is the number two carrier, it would add immense value to the airline/alliance if they could grab some capital-to-capital market share.

Quote:IMO, AA will eventually launch LAX-PEK...

This is a much needed addition to the LAX operation. I can only hope AA considers HKG as well.

US is moving to T3 at LAX. AA is gaining 4 gates at TBIT. So the new AA will have gates at T4, TBIT, T3, and the "eagle's nest". Not to mention the AS codeshares out of T6 (which include GEG and BOI among others)..

Besides the 4 preferential TBIT gates, does AA have the ability to utilize other TBIT gates during the parts of the day when operations by international carriers are at a minimum?

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 116):Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 118):
How many legacy flights have been added at CVG in the past 5 years?

I can vouch for this, US with service to DCA, AC to YYZ, and UA adding to existing DEN and increasing capacity to ORD. F9 arriving, and other airlines with proposed routes, such as US to PHX (according to one source, which is purely insider info, it's still in the works from Cincy business leaders.)

So, DL pulls about 400 daily flights out of CVG over ten years and you cite what, ten flights added by other carriers? Cubsrule's point is valid: when carriers drawn down overserved tertiary hubs, other carriers don't rush in to fill them.

Quoting wnflyguy (Reply 120):WN,US and LAWA over the last 5 years have had many proposals on were to relocate US airways.
I think US finally agreed to move to terminal 3 only because they knew a deal AA was coming.
Personally I don't think Us Airways will stay long term or relocate into terminal 3 at ALL.
I can see Us Airways drop all main line LAX-PHX flying to RJ's. PHL and CLT drop to 3 flights each making it easier to slot them into terminal 4.

You really think US would drop PHL to 3 daily?? Even CLT for that matter?

I hardly believe that US will let PHX go all RJ... If PHX goes all RJ they may as well just close the PHX hub. LAX is one of the largest O&D Markets from PHX. Though definitely a saturated market, it would be suicide to do that. US actually will be moving their club to terminal 3. If anything, it says that they are committed to T3. Who knows... if VX goes bust eventually they may try to take over most of the terminal. Gate space in LAX is indeed valuable.

Quoting MIflyer12 (Reply 128): So, DL pulls about 400 daily flights out of CVG over ten years and you cite what, ten flights added by other carriers? Cubsrule's point is valid: when carriers drawn down overserved tertiary hubs, other carriers don't rush in to fill them.

When other carriers try they are spooked out of the market by DL's predatory pricing, which for whatever reason some people think doesn't deserve an anti-trust lawsuit, which I know is currently in the preliminary stage amongst attorneys right now.

Quoting nwcoflyer (Reply 129):I can see Us Airways drop all main line LAX-PHX flying to RJ's.

Wont happen. Even if AA cloesd PHX completely, they would still dominate the LAX-PHX market due to residual loyalty in PHX. Does AA fly RJs only on STL-LGA? No.

While I expect PHX to see the most total capacity changes, people here are acting like PHX is some type of LAS with only leisure traffic. PHX is over 4m people and has numerous business HDQ. AA might cut back on the margins, but Id be surprised if PHX ever fell below 200+ flights per day.

Quoting steeler83 (Reply 119): Not to mention, but what about the economy in Phoenix? Isn't it pretty strong?

Hardly. PHX took a bath in the real estate bust. If we look at unemployment and compare to some of the other cities being discussed here, PHX is right in the middle of CVG, PIT and STL, and unemployment seems to be inching upwards.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 132):PHX took a bath in the real estate bust. If we look at unemployment and compare to some of the other cities being discussed here, PHX is right in the middle of CVG, PIT and STL, and unemployment seems to be inching upwards.

Oh, right. Sorry, I forgot about how hard some of those rust belt cities were hit by the recession and the housing market collapse.

With all due respect, I don't think I'd lump PHX with PIT in that regard. PIT's economy is actually pretty strong. Real estate values are climbing, unemployment is relatively low (still below the nat'l average IIRC), and for the first time in 40 years the region's population is increasing.

What is the local O&D like at PHX, and how much of it is high-yielding O&D?

Quoting steeler83 (Reply 133):With all due respect, I don't think I'd lump PHX with PIT in that regard. PIT's economy is actually pretty strong. Real estate values are climbing, unemployment is relatively low (still below the nat'l average IIRC), and for the first time in 40 years the region's population is increasing.

Pittsburgh and Cincinnati both have fairly strong economies that are probably more diverse than ever before. The narrative that the dehubbings had something to do with the local economies there (or in Saint Louis, for that matter) is convenient but wrong, as is the narrative that Phoenix's economy is somehow much stronger than those economies. The economies are very different, but I struggle to find objective measures by which Phoenix consistently comes out ahead.

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 122):Just about every city pair served by US via PHX can be done in the new carrier via DFW, LAX, and even ORD.

DFW could pick up flights, but good luck finding gate space at LAX or more slots at ORD, which has GDPs more often than not. Besides, LAX probably has double the cost of PHX.

Quoting wnflyguy (Reply 120):I can see Us Airways drop all main line LAX-PHX flying to RJ's.

Not a chance. US flies 985 seats in each direction per day (3 A321s, 2 A320s, 1 A319), and I rarely see them go out less than 85% full, with the LAX-PHX segments running oversold most days, especially in the afternoon when all the TPAC flights come in. Dropping them all to even CR9s would eliminate over half of those seats.

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 123):Gate space at LAX is a treasured commodity. I doubt that the new airline would abandon those T3 gates so easily. That would be throwing away potential. Just look at UA there, they use gates in T6, T7, and T8. Yes, they are all connected airside. But AA has a shuttlebus service in place that goes to TBIT, T6, and the Eagle's Nest from T4. In fact, it also used to go to T3 when AS was located there.

A number of factors to consider:

(1) LAWA plans to redevelop T3. That might mean a complete rebuild, resulting in fewer gates I think. Fewer gates and service disruptions due to construction might be enough to drive the new AA out of there.

(2) With that pending, LAWA has decided not to build the T3 connector to the new TBIT.

(3) One program element of the T4 connector building will be a busport by means of which passengers arriving at TBIT can connect to flights at T5, T6, and T7. This begs the question of what will happen to AA's own bus service. Will it be merged with the new bus service? If that happens, could AA still restart bus service to T3? LAWA wants the buses to stay on the south side.

(4) More gates are coming to the South side and to the new TBIT itself. The midfield concourse, which is in the planning and coordination phase, will be built in stages, beginning if I remember correctly with the section on the South side. The new LAX plan includes an extension of the north concourse of the new TBIT.

If either one of these two things happens in the near future, AA would be better off staying where it is and laying claim to as many gates as it can in the south concourses of TBIT. The T4 connector will effectively merge T4 with TBIT, as it will be bi-directional and have an AA (oneworld) branded lounge at both ends.

Comparing IAD to PHL is a bit apples to oranges given their locations. PHL is totally built out with no room for expansion without relocating I-95 (not likely). IAD still has room to build at least one additional runway and plenty of land for new concourses. So the potential for IAD as a NE connecting hub is pretty unlimited, while PHL has physical limits.

That said, PHL will be essential to connections working in tandem with DCA and CLT in the near term since they do not have one or two large airports they can focus their connecting traffic to like UA with EWR and IAD. But after CLT finishes their expansion, I could see PHL relegated to connecting traffic only destined to locations close to the NE. Connections from the NE to midwest and west would go through ORD or CLT and to the south and west would go through DFW and CLT.

The New AA flying internationally from IAD is an intriguing idea. But I would think this would be far down on the list of new ideas since DCA is a quick flight to both PHL and CLT and would never amount to much given strong UA and international airline presence already entrenched. Perhaps to LHR or Latin America, but not much else.

Quoting capitalflyer (Reply 137):Comparing IAD to PHL is a bit apples to oranges given their locations. PHL is totally built out with no room for expansion without relocating I-95 (not likely). IAD still has room to build at least one additional runway and plenty of land for new concourses. So the potential for IAD as a NE connecting hub is pretty unlimited, while PHL has physical limits.

I'd actually argue that comparing IAD to PHL is apples to oranges because IAD largely benefits as the International gateway to the US capital with a large number of gov't employees/contractors flying to DC and NoVa.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 136):(1) LAWA plans to redevelop T3. That might mean a complete rebuild, resulting in fewer gates I think. Fewer gates and service disruptions due to construction might be enough to drive the new AA out of there.

Well if LAWA does cause any disruptions, there will have to be compensation to AA. Holding on to any T3 gates would constitute an investment, especially if LAWA absorbs the costs of refurbishing/rebuilding the terminal. If VX does fold, as many here speculate, AA will be in a prime position to assume those gates as well.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 136):With that pending, LAWA has decided not to build the T3 connector to the new TBIT.

Are you saying that LAWA wont pay for a connector or they wont allow a connector altogether?

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 136):If either one of these two things happens in the near future, AA would be better off staying where it is and laying claim to as many gates as it can in the south concourses of TBIT. The T4 connector will effectively merge T4 with TBIT, as it will be bi-directional and have an AA (oneworld) branded lounge at both ends.

How will gates in TBIT, allow for expansion of domestic operations? I cant imagine LAWA will be too happy with AA dumpnig domestic flights into TBIT.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 136):The midfield concourse, which is in the planning and coordination phase, will be built in stages, beginning if I remember correctly with the section on the South side.

Will the midfield concourse won't have an airside connection to TBIT? Otherwise it wont be any more convenient than T3.

I would add that several mainline gates have had their jet bridges removed, such as K-15, and there is some slack in how many flights are run through mainline gates at ORD.

Further, when the third east-west runway open, the operations caps were fully removed by the FAA. Yet, traffic really hasn't increase that much since November of 2008. ORD certainly isn't as busy as it was in 2002 and 2003, when AA was shifting some flying from STL to ORD, and UA was replacing some of its mainline flying with increased numbers of RJ flights.

I believe that the Aviation Dep. for the City of Chicago is targeting October for opening the fourth east-west runway, on the south side of the field. This should cut down on delays during bad weather even more, which means that ORD should be able to handle additional scheduled flights.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 140):How will gates in TBIT, allow for expansion of domestic operations? I cant imagine LAWA will be too happy with AA dumpnig domestic flights into TBIT.

Under the original agreement, that was actually AA's plan, to use the 4 TBIT gates for domestic flights. Back then, LAWA approved of that plan.

Of course, a lot has changed since then. The two sides (LAWA and AA) have discussed many scenarios, as a result of having to come to some agreement about the scope of the connector building project.

The important thing to understand here is that all the gates at TBIT are common use gates. So even if AA had no right to 4 preferential gates, it could make an agreement with LAWA to use those gates and the connector certainly gives AA the functional wherewithal to do just that, especially on departures.

Departures make more sense than arrivals because there are no domestic baggage claim devices at TBIT. Honestly, I don't know what the path would be from a TBIT gate to T4 baggage claim. Getting the bags there won't be a problem since the terminals are right next to each other. But how would the passenger get there? Would he or she exit the plane at the concourse level (instead of the upper level) and then proceed to T4 via the airside connector? That might work. (I wonder if this poses some security problem.)

Whatever the case, AA has many options. They are not landlocked at LAX like Delta is.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 140):Are you saying that LAWA wont pay for a connector or they wont allow a connector altogether?

They took it off the project list for Capital Budget #2 because they did not have an agreement with any T3 airline to build it and they were already questions about the future shape and size of T3. It could be resurrected at a later time, but probably not before any redevelopment of T3. That's a long way off if you have any expectations of creating in the near term a seamless airside connection between T3 and T4 (via TBIT).

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 140):Will the midfield concourse won't have an airside connection to TBIT? Otherwise it wont be any more convenient than T3.

It will have an airside connection to TBIT. In the Fentress model, there is supposed to be a bridge over the taxiway. As envisioned, the bridge will extend all the way to T4. One of the oddities of the roofline of the new south concourse is that it dips inexplicably where the bridge is supposed to go. We shall see if LAWA follows through.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 142):Departures make more sense than arrivals because there are no domestic baggage claim devices at TBIT. Honestly, I don't know what the path would be from a TBIT gate to T4 baggage claim. Getting the bags there won't be a problem since the terminals are right next to each other. But how would the passenger get there? Would he or she exit the plane at the concourse level (instead of the upper level) and then proceed to T4 via the airside connector? That might work. (I wonder if this poses some security problem.)

We're kinda delving into the minutiae of LAX here . Actually there is a domestic claim device in the old section 'A' of the arrivals level. Non-carousel type with a linear frontage of about 50' in length. Wasn't in the original plan for the old TBIT 'makeover' project (2007 - 2010) - and it shows.

Because of its location relative to the assumed path-of-travel for arriving AA passengers, I doubt that AA will give consideration to its use.

One possible solution that comes to mind - gut the T-4 FIS and (for lack a better term) "reverse engineer" the existing TBIT - T4 tunnel. The latest drawings and schematics that I'd seen retain that tunnel despite the existence of a connector building above.

Install one-way, automatic doors (similar to what's installed at the claims area end of the T4 tunnel), and use the current FIS baggage claim devices. No need to retain a T4 FIS if AA intends to clear all flights at TBIT.

At the end of the day rather small operation US Airways (mere 15 departures tomorrow for example) will be out of T-1 and will colocate with AA other ops.

Yes AA should eventually also get use of some TBIT gates however personally I don't view such as a very attractive proposition except for the handful of international flights.
It will essentially be a repeat of UA at SFO and its use of international G gates with the long walks involved. The gates will be a killer for domestic ops or short connections imo.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 144):It will essentially be a repeat of UA at SFO and its use of international G gates with the long walks involved. The gates will be a killer for domestic ops or short connections imo.

Agree, particularly with the observation of the operation likely mirroring that of UA's at SFO.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 130):When other carriers try they are spooked out of the market by DL's predatory pricing, which for whatever reason some people think doesn't deserve an anti-trust lawsuit, which I know is currently in the preliminary stage amongst attorneys right now.

If F9 pulls out of CVG citing DL, expect this lawsuit to happen.

Its dead in the water. The reason other carriers arent rushing to CVG to fill the void is because there is no void to fill. CVG is not a very large market overall and DL gets almost all of it. What CVG had is years past that they dont have now was mostly connecting traffic anyway. Theyll be lucky to hang onto CVG-CDG.

PHX is a different matter. What will save it from a fate similar to CVG or STL is that the market is actually quite large, albeit low yielding. AA/US will do what it takes to keep the local traffic they currently get, while eliminating much of the connecting traffic (sans smaller cities in California and the Southwest). I dont see DFW getting flights to places like OAK, SBP, BFL, FLG, or the return of SBA or BUR. If DFW sees any new destinations out west, it will be GEG and BOI which PHX already serves. It would be in addition to, not in place of PHX service.

Its for that reason that PHX will be needed even if it will not be as large as it currently is.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 147):PHX is a different matter. What will save it from a fate similar to CVG or STL is that the market is actually quite large, albeit low yielding. AA/US will do what it takes to keep the local traffic they currently get, while eliminating much of the connecting traffic (sans smaller cities in California and the Southwest). I dont see DFW getting flights to places like OAK, SBP, BFL, FLG, or the return of SBA or BUR. If DFW sees any new destinations out west, it will be GEG and BOI which PHX already serves. It would be in addition to, not in place of PHX service.

Its for that reason that PHX will be needed even if it will not be as large as it currently is.

What is the need for OAK-PHX to continue? Or GEG/BOI-PHX for that matter? Are they that high-fare yielding routes? PHX as a hub has little cachement. There is almost nothing unique about it compared to moving people through LAX or DFW instead. Aside from picking up some traffic from some small markets like YUM or FLG or SBP. Then there's cities like LGB and BUR. I'm sure the data will be looked at thoroughly, and if it appears that most of that traffic is going beyond the Mountain Time Zone, then yes, you could see service to DFW started and flights to PHX either reduced or elimintated.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 130):When other carriers try they are spooked out of the market by DL's predatory pricing, which for whatever reason some people think doesn't deserve an anti-trust lawsuit

They weren't spooked by any predatory pricing by DL, it was the fact that everyone was flying DL instead of the low-fare carrier in the past. We can blame our current situation on the morons who constantly b!tch and complain about DL and their "monopoly" and yet chose to continue flying DL instead of rewarding the competition for a short-term gain in SkyMiles, those are the people that drove airTran and Vanguard from CVG and no anti-trust lawsuit is going to change that unless consumers themselves change (which I think they have seeing how strong F9's bookings have been so far).

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 147): The reason other carriers arent rushing to CVG to fill the void is because there is no void to fill. CVG is not a very large market overall and DL gets almost all of it.

In a sense CVG definitely still is very well served, but there is absolutely some room for LCC stimulation. CVG's O&D numbers are pathetically low for a market it's size due to a non-existent LCC presence and high fares, so there is a market opportunity IMO, but you're right in that it certainly doesn't equate to an LCC backfilling all those cut DL flights.

Quoting aaway (Reply 143):Install one-way, automatic doors (similar to what's installed at the claims area end of the T4 tunnel), and use the current FIS baggage claim devices. No need to retain a T4 FIS if AA intends to clear all flights at TBIT.

Yup, I can see that going away. As with the T6 and T5 FIS, it was never staffed at all times to be a passenger-friendly facility.

As to the tunnel, that was always a long walk back to T4 and not a very pleasant one.

Speaking for myself, I don't mind the walks if there are things to see and do, which is why I think the connector will get a lot of use and not just by AA passengers connecting to oneworld flights. The great hall is going to be quite an attraction and the connector itself will provide quite a view of the airfield.

Given all that, the walk won't seem that long, particularly if you gate the AA flights at the gates nearest to the great hall. You know who would also like that, the mall operator. You can bet the mall operator is one of the biggest proponents of the connector. More shoppers, more diners, more foot traffic. Heck, if I were the mall operator, I would want AA to gate all their premium transcons (NYC and Miami) at TBIT.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 147): I dont see DFW getting flights to places like OAK, SBP, BFL, FLG, or the return of SBA or BUR. If DFW sees any new destinations out west, it will be GEG and BOI which PHX already serves. It would be in addition to, not in place of PHX service.

OAK could probably work from DFW - it's not a small market in the same way SBA or FLG are and it would be good to not cede the Bay Area to Star. BUR would compete directly with LAX so I could see that not restarting.

An interesting twist developed yesterday during AA/US's Senate hearing on the merger. CEO Doug Parker revealed for the first time that the carrier now views its National operation as a hub.

Parker is trying to make a case for the combined carrier to keep as many slots as possible at DCA saying "the smaller cities can be served only because the hub operation augments local traffic with connecting traffic, so divestiture would likely turn over slots to airlines that would trim service to the smaller cities."

Also interesting to note is that while AA/US would have two-thirds of the slots, it only represents 50% of the seats out of DCA.

Parker does present a compelling case, but I wonder if it is a strong enough case to avoid any slot divestitures at DCA.

Quoting EricR (Reply 152):An interesting twist developed yesterday during AA/US's Senate hearing on the merger. CEO Doug Parker revealed for the first time that the carrier now views its National operation as a hub.

I think US started viewing DCA as a hub with the acquisition of the DL slots. DL did the same thing with LGA if I'm not mistaken.

Quoting EricR (Reply 152):Also interesting to note is that while AA/US would have two-thirds of the slots, it only represents 50% of the seats out of DCA.

It's interesting that these numbers will normalize with the merger. Slot numbers will drop, but seats may well increase with average aircraft size.

“The Phoenix hub is a critical piece of US Airways’ profitability and will be a critical piece of American’s profitability. We will be able to provide more service to the people of Arizona. I feel very good about that.”
It's a critical piece I'm sure, and will even further drive profitability when flights are moved across more lucrative hubs.

I'm reading a lot of words like "expect"..."intend"..."anticipate". Words that at first glance look positive but in reality offer very little in the way of promise.

Neither Parker or Horton promised to maintain the current level of service—a combined frequency of 288 flights per day—nor promised international service on either AA or US metal. All that was said was there would be some level of hub activity in the foreseeable future. That could be anything from maintaining current service, increasing it, or paring service down to feeding smaller western cities into flights originating at PHX.

“We gave the people of Arizona more opportunities to fly more places,” he said. “The Phoenix hub is a critical piece of US Airways’ profitability and will be a critical piece of American’s profitability. We will be able to provide more service to the people of Arizona. I feel very good about that.”

He said the Dallas hub is far enough away from Phoenix to not interfere with operations and that American uses its hub in Los Angeles for different types of connections, many to Asia, than what the combined airline will do with Phoenix.

Repeatedly during the testimony, Parker said the airlines intend to run the combined company much as the two are run today.

Horton added that because the combined airline will be a part of the Oneworld frequent-traveler alliance, it is possible that other Oneworld airlines could add flights to Phoenix to connect members to flights. Oneworld members include British Airways, Qantas, Finnair and several others.

Parker agreed.

“Growth is something in the future that is harder to predict,” he said. “Whatever opportunities exist in Phoenix today are even greater (with a merger). International possibilities that are very important to the state that we have not been able to accomplish on a standalone basis are much more viable than they were with US Airways as a standalone.”

Were promises made? No. Where flight schedules revealed? No. Does what they said squash all the reasoning posted on the forum about flights being shifted to DFW and LAX by the droves? Yes.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 147):Its for that reason that PHX will be needed even if it will not be as large as it currently is.

The PHX-Hawaii flights serve a purpose and will stay IMO. I'm not up on the yields in that market, but it is one of the few things PHX does better than just about any other hub. Hawaii is not all about coastal nonstops.

Quoting Austwin (Reply 159):Does what they said squash all the reasoning posted on the forum about flights being shifted to DFW and LAX by the droves? Yes.

Please justify how AA will need to continue to fly 6x/day between PDX and PHX in the post-merger era. PHX is an inconvenient transfer point for most of the U.S. from here. Right now it's justified because that's how one travels on the US system plus O&D traffic.

Please let us know how that traffic will continue to flow over PHX when other flows are more efficient for both the airline and passenger. Then rinse and repeat for any number of other cities in the combined network.

Quoting Austwin (Reply 159):
Horton added that because the combined airline will be a part of the Oneworld frequent-traveler alliance, it is possible that other Oneworld airlines could add flights to Phoenix to connect members to flights. Oneworld members include British Airways, Qantas, Finnair and several others.

This is purely PR jargon. Qantas is a long shot and Finnair is an exponentially longer shot.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 161):Please let us know how that traffic will continue to flow over PHX when other flows are more efficient for both the airline and passenger. Then rinse and repeat for any number of other cities in the combined network.

PHX can be a logical transfer point from the west coast to Mexican destinations, certainly places such as SJD, ACA, MZL etc on the Mexican Riviera. Beyond that, I'm not certain how much sense it would be to change planes in PHX to go to points further east when you can do the same via ORD or DFW.

Aside from PHL, the fate of PHX will be the most interesting to watch as the combined AA decide how to harmonize its network.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 161):Please justify how AA will need to continue to fly 6x/day between PDX and PHX in the post-merger era. PHX is an inconvenient transfer point for most of the U.S. from here. Right now it's justified because that's how one travels on the US system plus O&D traffic.

Bingo.
Even though this is just an example, I could see PDX-PHX dropping to 3x easily. If AA adds a single PDX-LAX, I think the number could easily drop to 2x on PDX-PHX.

“Growth is something in the future that is harder to predict,” he said. “Whatever opportunities exist in Phoenix today are even greater (with a merger). International possibilities that are very important to the state that we have not been able to accomplish on a standalone basis are much more viable than they were with US Airways as a standalone.”.

Parker and Horton chose their words very carefully. Take the paragraph above as an example. What Parker said above is true whether or not PHX remains as a hub or not. The combined airline will offer US customers more international opportunities because AA flies to a lot of international destinations that US did not. Similarly, the combined airline will offer AA passengers a lot more domestic and international opportunities because US flew to many domestic cities and many secondary cities in Europe that AA did not fly to.

I think you are automatically assuming his comments mean more N/S flights out of PHX, but they purposely stopped short of saying this. They also clearly admitted that growth in the future is hard to predict.

"The Phoenix hub is a critical piece of US Airways’ profitability and will be a critical piece of American’s profitability. We will be able to provide more service to the people of Arizona. I feel very good about that.”.

Again, a true statement whether PHX remains as a hub or not. But pay special attention to the word profitable. They could potentially gut the hell out of PHX, but one thing they clearly state is that will it be profitable for AA. There is no mention that PHX will retain the same number of seats as they do today.

Quoting EricR (Reply 152):An interesting twist developed yesterday during AA/US's Senate hearing on the merger. CEO Doug Parker revealed for the first time that the carrier now views its National operation as a hub.

Parker is trying to make a case for the combined carrier to keep as many slots as possible at DCA saying "the smaller cities can be served only because the hub operation augments local traffic with connecting traffic, so divestiture would likely turn over slots to airlines that would trim service to the smaller cities."

Also interesting to note is that while AA/US would have two-thirds of the slots, it only represents 50% of the seats out of DCA.

Parker does present a compelling case, but I wonder if it is a strong enough case to avoid any slot divestitures at DCA.

I think the specific terminology of "hub" or "focus city" is relatively unimportant in the scheme of things - especially to politicians on CSPAN who don't truly understand such words (nor much else in the airline industry) or regulators who don't much care. What I think is more notable is how both Horton and Parker - just as expected - repeatedly played up, again and again, in their statements regarding DCA the one argument most likely to gain political traction in Washington. And that is of course the loss of nonstop access to the nation's capitol from small and mid-size markets.

And, I think, that argument has real merit. Parker articulately laid out, including using the extremely relevant example of JetBlue, how these low-fare carriers lobbying for greater DCA access from confiscated AA slots are most likely to use those slots in large markets that are already more likely to have (more) competition. Southwest isn't going to be flying from DCA to LEX. JetBlue isn't going to be flying from DCA to CAK. And since any slots AA is forced to give up are certainly not going to come from DFW, ORD, MIA, CLT, etc., there are plenty of Senators and Congressman who are going to be concerned - for good reason - with their community's air access to DCA.

I think the minimum number of slots AA will have to give up at DCA will be those tied to the two DCA markets where they overlap - RDU and BNA. The combined schedules from both carriers includes 22 slot pairs (14 RDU, 8 BNA) - I would expect regulators will expect them to give up at least half of those slots, or around 11 pairs. I think AA and US should fight against anything greater than that, since anything greater than that will effectively mean reducing flights in already-non-overlapping markets, and that will absolutely mean cuts in small cities.

It does seem to put such suggestions "to rest" - if you entirely ignore the near-verbatim statements made by other airline CEOs in other airline mergers, and then the subsequent hub closures or reductions those airlines pursued anyway. The words "willing suspension of disbelief" comes to mind.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 164):I'm not certain how much sense it would be to change planes in PHX to go to points further east when you can do the same via ORD or DFW.

It is difficult to understand why you need a hub in PHX - at least one of the same scale and scope as what US has there now - if you have so many other hubs capable of handling much of the traffic flows PHX now handles, and in many case doing so much more conveniently. When you skim away those connections, and of course account for the higher costs of the merged airline, and also the relatively high competition and low yields in the PHX local market, it's difficult to imagine how "new AA" can justify such a hub to shareholders - regardless of who is running the show or what statements where made in congressional hearings.

Quoting commavia (Reply 167):it is difficult to understand why you need a hub in PHX - at least one of the same scale and scope as what US has there now - if you have so many other hubs capable of handling much of the traffic flows PHX now handles, and in many case doing so much more conveniently. When you skim away those connections, and of course account for the higher costs of the merged airline, and also the relatively high competition and low yields in the PHX local market, it's difficult to imagine how "new AA" can justify such a hub to shareholders - regardless of who is running the show or what statements where made in congressional hearings.

I agree words were chosen carefully, but don't underestimate the importance of a PHX hub. Phoenix just climbed to number 13 on the list of largest US metros. Every other top 14 metro has a legacy hub except Boston but they have Jet Blue. Within 10 years Phoenix will crack the top 10 metro areas. You never want to walk in the short term from an area of increasing demand as rapidly as Phoenix is growing.

I travel for business to the west coast. I value a first class upgrade and assigned seat as well as redeeming miles for international travel, so southwest is not an option for me. Connecting in LAX or DFW would not be a viable option to get me to SJC, LAS, RNO, PDX, SFO, Etc... You get the point.

I'm not saying PHX doesn't shrink, but it doesn't go away. You cannot send someone flying from SJC or SNA to DFW to get them to PHX, LAS, PDX, etc. My point is giving up PHX would be to give up an any intrawest network and essentially focus your business on moving passengers from west to east or west to Midwest. AA would be abanndoning the west connecting market and conceding to WN, UA, and DL, which all have hubs in the region for that exact reason.

Connecting in LAX or DFW would not be a viable option to get me to SJC, LAS, RNO, PDX, SFO, Etc... You get the point..

Why wouldn't LAX work? Each of the cities you mentioned are easily reachable from PHX via LAX with no backtracking (minor backtracking to get to LAS). Maybe AA keeps routes from PHX to DEN, SLC, ABQ, SNA, BUR, but pretty much all other western destinations from PHX can be reached via LAX. Also, something to note is that the aforementioned routes from PHX are low fare routes (I saw one way fares from PHX-DEN on WN for $59), so AA is not going to make any substantial profits by keeping these routes, and could quite possibly lose money should another carrier (WN) put up a fight.

Quoting Austwin (Reply 159):Does what they said squash all the reasoning posted on the forum about flights being shifted to DFW and LAX by the droves? Yes.

They will do whatever makes money. What they say has no meaning at all

Quoting commavia (Reply 167): Southwest isn't going to be flying from DCA to LEX. JetBlue isn't going to be flying from DCA to CAK. And since any slots AA is forced to give up are certainly not going to come from DFW, ORD, MIA, CLT, etc., there are plenty of Senators and Congressman who are going to be concerned - for good reason - with their community's air access to DCA.

I don't think they need ~18 flights to RDU, for example. It's laughable for them to even suggest they should keep increasing their market share at Reagan. Clearly there is limited capacity there. The capacity limitation should fall on the airline that already has greatest access to the facility. If Senators want to dictate where Americans can fly out of DCA with their own money, that is abhorrent. Let the low value flying go to IAD.

My believe is that the hub is in a bad location for all but a very narrow set of connecting traffic flows, and that AA has other hubs that are in better locations to handle many of the same connecting traffic flows, the local O&D market is large but skews more leisure than other hubs, and it is a highly competitive market and thus relatively lower-yielding than many other hubs.

Nobody has yet to really argue with any of the above.

Quoting PHXFlyer16 (Reply 168):Phoenix just climbed to number 13 on the list of largest US metros.

But that means little in terms of the hub, which also caters largely to connections. If you peel away some portion of the connections, and are left with just the O&D, you don't need nearly as large an operation as US has now, particularly since Southwest already caters so well for the local market.

Quoting PHXFlyer16 (Reply 168):Every other top 14 metro has a legacy hub except Boston but they have Jet Blue.

And Phoenix has Southwest!

Quoting PHXFlyer16 (Reply 168):I value a first class upgrade and assigned seat as well as redeeming miles for international travel, so southwest is not an option for me.

Sure, although I am not sure if there are enough people like you in PHX to justify the level of nonstop flying currently done, and the amount of capacity currently flying. If there is sufficient PHX premium demand to west coast markets, I could see at least some of that flying shifted to CR9s.

Quoting PHXFlyer16 (Reply 168):Connecting in LAX or DFW would not be a viable option to get me to SJC, LAS, RNO, PDX, SFO, Etc.

Which is why none of us have said PHX will go down to just he hubs. But if you accept (and I realize plenty of people here don't) that PHX is a suboptimal connecting hub, and that many of those connections easily can and therefor likely in time will, shift to other hubs, than what you're left with is just the PHX local market. And while that market is large, true, it also tends to be relatively heavier on PHX-destination versus PHX-originating, and it also tends to be lower-yielding. So I think PHX will certainly retain flights to major western U.S. markets (LAX, SAN, SNA, SFO, SJC, PDX, SEA, possibly SMF), but I see that access being based on fewer frequencies, and in many cases likely smaller planes.

As I said, the basis for any slot divestiture should be focused on the two markets where this merger will actually lead to a material change in the competitive landscape (i.e., loss of a competitor compared to the current competitive dynamic). That means RDU and BNA.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 171):It's laughable for them to even suggest they should keep increasing their market share at Reagan.

I don't think it's that laughable considering that the increased market share would come almost entirely from complimentary flying. If there was tons of overlap, I would totally agree. But if AA is forced to give up slots, all regulators will effectively be doing is transferring slots and capacity from small cities who already have only 1 choice to DCA to big cities that are more likely to already have more than 1 choice to DCA.

Here is what you are missing... In order to compete with DL and UA, you must have a comparable network. I understand yields are lower, but that does not justify AA waiving the white flag to intra-west flying. A mountain hub is crucial to serving this market, it is crucial, that AA operate a network with strength in most regions, especially where their competition has a presence.

Do you think UA loves their yields in DEN? I bout it, competition from LCCs is even stronger there. Do they print money? I doubt it. BUT they realize to abandon DEN would be to leave a large hole in intrawest flying in their network. They too have hubs in ORD and Texas, along with SFO. Under your premise UA would be pulling down DEN dramatically be it has other hubs that could handle flows, has stiff competition, lower yields, etc.

Why don't they? Because many travelers, especially for business, are loyal. If you can't fly them from the Bay Area or the northwest to PHX, LAS, or DEN then your chances of them choosing your airline when it's time to go to the east coast or overseas is greatly diminished. They'll turn their loyalty toward someone with convenient connections, which for them spells a mountain hub.

My point is that you cannot isolate a hub when comparable networks are so important these days. You abandon a large region of the US and you often lose much more than just the in-region flights. Especially when you already have a huge FF base that you are essentially giving up.

Quoting PHXFlyer16 (Reply 173):Here is what you are missing... In order to compete with DL and UA, you must have a comparable network. I understand yields are lower, but that does not justify AA waiving the white flag to intra-west flying.

And here is what I believe you're missing: PHX does not give AA a "comparable" network with DL or UA anyway, and it certainly is not an "intra-west" hub. Where PHX is well-situated is for east-west connections coming in to and out of California. That's it. For everything else, including "intra-west," PHX is either entirely worthless or merely inferior to other AA hubs. So the argument that somehow PHX is necessary for AA to maintain network parity with DL or UA falls down on the simple reality that PHX - as it is, today - provides US with no such network parity whatsoever. Indeed, as I've long said, I doubt US would even have a legacy/network-style hub in PHX today if it weren't for the HP legacy there and, most importantly, the lack of any alternative. The "new AA," unlike the current US or old HP, has plenty of very, very good alternatives.

Quoting PHXFlyer16 (Reply 173):A mountain hub is crucial to serving this market, it is crucial, that AA operate a network with strength in most regions, especially where their competition has a presence.

First off, PHX is not a "mountain hub." It's too far west, and too far south. Look at the network US operates from PHX to the Rocky Mountain region - it's really no more impressive that what AA already operates from hubs east of the region (DFW/ORD).

Second, the Mountain West region is hardly "crucial" - of all the major regions of the U.S., it's by far the least populated and least dense. If there's one region in the U.S. that is relatively the least important, that's it - particularly since it only has two viable entry (hub) points - DEN and then SLC - and both are well spoken for. PHX is not an alternative to DEN or SLC.

And finally, to the second point, it's not at all "crucial" for AA to have a strong presence in every region, just - as you say - in "most" regions. And AA will have an extremely strong presence in just about every region of the country except the mountain west and Pacific northwest. Can't win 'em all. DL has relatively little presence in TX and the south-central U.S., and that's a region that is far larger and faster-growing than the mountain west. But DL seems to be doing just fine nonetheless.

Quoting PHXFlyer16 (Reply 173):Do you think UA loves their yields in DEN? I bout it, competition from LCCs is even stronger there. Do they print money? I doubt it. BUT they realize to abandon DEN would be to leave a large hole in intrawest flying in their network.

Again - you cannot compare PHX to DEN. DEN is the economic, political, cultural and transportation hub of the entire Rocky Mountain region. It is the equivalent of what ATL is to the southeastern U.S. DEN also has a huge premium/corporate travel base, and it's in an excellent, central location. For all of those reasons, DEN is far more worth fighting for than PHX.

Quoting PHXFlyer16 (Reply 173):Why don't they? Because many travelers, especially for business, are loyal. If you can't fly them from the Bay Area or the northwest to PHX, LAS, or DEN then your chances of them choosing your airline when it's time to go to the east coast or overseas is greatly diminished. They'll turn their loyalty toward someone with convenient connections, which for them spells a mountain hub.

Losing some level of those customers may be a risk AA is willing to take - or may not even have a choice in. The merged airline will have higher costs, which is really going to challenge the economics of a relatively lower-yielding hub like PHX. Given that, and the diminished network relevant of PHX, AA may well calculate that the best return for shareholders is to give up the business of some PHX customers who demand fares too low to cover AA's costs.

Quoting PHXFlyer16 (Reply 173):You abandon a large region of the US and you often lose much more than just the in-region flights.

Nobody is saying AA should "abandon" the southwest U.S., or for that matter even PHX. But you don't need a hub - or at least a hub of the current scale and scope - in PHX to serve that metro area and region, and particularly the business travel market thereof.

Spare me. No use debating with someone who doesn't understand the region.

There are many W/E flows today because it is the only hub for US west of the Mississippi. Some of that will go away, but intrawest connections and hub will stay. NOBODY is connecting in DFW for intrawest flights. This is why US is complimentary to AA's network which is very weak in the west. AA has struggled for a number of reasons including domestic weakness in the NE, SW and NW. If AA was successful just running everything through DFW, LAX and ORD then they wouldn't be #3 and wouldn't have needed bankruptcy so badly.

AA and US are not merging to add more planes to existing hubs. There is a reason why that doesn't work and why nobody in the western US flies AA today.

Finally, DEN may have a higher % of business travelers, but PHX metro has nearly 2M more people, so there is actually more demand. I agree location isn't ideal but there is really no alternative, and there's a trade off to hubbing one of the largest and fastest growing areas in the US, even if it is not quite as convenient as SLC or DEN. It is still way more convenient than DFW if you are not crossing the country.

From PDX, there are few population centers in the west and midwest which are better served via PHX than on a nonstop or via SLC, DEN, MSP, ORD, DFW and IAH. There are some, for sure, but not many of high volume where there aren't other better opportunities as well.

What I don't understand is the appeal PHX boosters believe that PHX brings to the party which will be recognized by those outside the PHX metro area. Other than offering a cheap fare to drive demand up and yields down, what exactly does PHX offer to me better from PDX, and to where, other than the limited natural connections in the southwest which would cause 6 nonstops on US/AA to continue post-merger. (Recall, WN and AS are also in the marketplace with nonstops.)

Asked numerous times, no PHX booster has been brave enough to stick their neck out to answer, because it always ends up with 'unsustainable yield' as part of the equation. But give it a try, I'm honestly open to being sold on PHX.

Quoting PHXFlyer16 (Reply 175):Spare me. No use debating with someone who doesn't understand the region.

Then I guess it's no use debating someone who's deluding themselves that PHX is actually an inter-west or Mountain West hub on par with DEN and SLC. Outside of California, PHX is a very poor hub to connect Western US travelers to other destinations in the West.

Quoting PHXFlyer16 (Reply 175):There are many W/E flows today because it is the only hub for US west of the Mississippi.

...more than likely it's because it's one of the few areas where PHX makes sense as a connecting point.

To think that PHX will be the same post merger is naive. Although I think that there may be something that people are missing. I feel that most of us are assuming that PHX will maintain the same destinations and play the same role in the new AA. Subscribing to this idea I would say that this is a redundant role in the network, and as many have said above the same flows can be served by other hubs and the amount of connecting traffic can be funneled through other hubs.

On the other hand if PHX can play a different role in the network it may serve as more of a unique strength to AA. The infrastructure is already there to handle a large operation so it would not take a huge effort to shift flying to unserved/underserved markets in the west. I think you would see a decrease in flying from PHX-East Coast except for routes with high O&D and strong AA/US markets, slight reduction to cities in Cali and on the West Coast along with increases in new destinations served to communities like BIL, EUG, COS, EGE, and possibly some other Mexican and Canadian destinations. I could see this happening bringing PHX from somewhere between 180-220 daily departures. The key would be maintaining current O&D levels combined with optimization of connecting flows to unique PHX destinations as well as unique geographic flows such as SEA-MEX.

Having said that Parker may not decide to give PHX a new role, where I could see capacity being cut and mainly focus on PHX O&D destinations with fewer flights, but maintaining a high concentration of mainline to fight low yields. I think this would leave PHX with anywhere from 130-160 daily departures.

To the point of PHX being a large city and needs two airline hubs. I don't think they should be loyal to a city just because there used to be a hub there. If the economics work they will stay and if the economics don't work they will cut. Currently there are leases on facilities and that plays a huge factor into what happens, but I think there is something to be said for PHX being a growing metro area with expanding business opportunities. I think anyone that has resided in the area over the past 10 years can see the shift in mainly tourism to a larger mix of business and tourism. So for US to completely de-hub PHX a la STL, PIT, CVG, MEM would be a mistake, in my opinion of course, due to a large FF base, a fast growing metro area, and a growing business community.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 176):Asked numerous times, no PHX booster has been brave enough to stick their neck out to answer, because it always ends up with 'unsustainable yield' as part of the equation. But give it a try, I'm honestly open to being sold on PHX.

That is because there is no logical answer to this. The pro-hub PHX folks only think about intra-west connectivity but fail to understand the limited value (in terms of connecting flows AND profitability) that the PHX hub has in the combined AA/US system. They also do not realize that with LAX and DFW, much of the connecting passengers that once traveled via PHX will now go through another hub thus creating a situation whereby PHX would have too much capacity under the combined carrier.

The remaining short haul intra-west flights from PHX (So. Cal, LAS, ABQ, DEN) are all very low fare routes and are marginally profitable at best. SEA and PDX is already handled via codeshare on AS. There is no doubt that AA will gut the hub.

What "intra-west" connections? The only ones where PHX is well-positioned are California to the states east of PHX but west of DFW, and arguably between the west coast and TUS/FLG. That's it. Any other "intra-west" connections over PHX - say, PDX-SAN, or SEA-LAS - are likely being done at a steep yield discount. Why else would someone fly PDX-PHX-SAN when they could just fly nonstop? I do not believe such low-yielding (allegedly) "intra-west" flying is going to be sustainable at the higher costs of a merged airline.

AA today carries literally millions of people every year between the west and somewhere else, and even some within the west via LAX. US is in exactly the same competitive position.

US is not - today - a viable competitor in any way in the intra-west-coast market. PHX as a hub is horribly positioned for this, and any traffic US does carry as such is almost certainly sold at a yield discount to the ample nonstop and/or more convenient connections available via UA, AS, WN, etc.

PHX is a great hub to connect the west coast (California, specifically) with somewhere else - not "intra-west." The single only "intra-west" traffic flow - and indeed, the single only traffic flow, period, that I can think of - for which PHX is in a superior geographic location to another AA hub is for California-New Mexico/Colorado/west Texas. That's it.

For every single other traffic flow category for which PHX is now a large player, DFW, LAX and/or ORD are just as good if not better. You do not need PHX to handle those connecting flows.

Quoting PHXFlyer16 (Reply 168):I'm not saying PHX doesn't shrink, but it doesn't go away. You cannot send someone flying from SJC or SNA to DFW to get them to PHX, LAS, PDX, etc. My point is giving up PHX would be to give up an any intrawest network and essentially focus your business on moving passengers from west to east or west to Midwest.

Dehubbing PHX doesn't mean it would lose flights to the select important markets in the West that can survive on O&D alone.

Quoting PHXFlyer16 (Reply 168): Connecting in LAX or DFW would not be a viable option to get me to SJC, LAS, RNO, PDX, SFO, Etc... You get the point.

What's the alternative? Other airlines who hub even further away? or there is always Southwest...

Quoting Flighty (Reply 171): Clearly there is limited capacity there. The capacity limitation should fall on the airline that already has greatest access to the facility. If Senators want to dictate where Americans can fly out of DCA with their own money, that is abhorrent. Let the low value flying go to IAD.

So you are saying more unique destinations should be given up in favor of three or four airlines who all fly basically to ORD and MCO?

Quoting PHXFlyer16 (Reply 175):AA and US are not merging to add more planes to existing hubs. There is a reason why that doesn't work and why nobody in the western US flies AA today.

The reason AA is weak in some areas - not the entire West Coast but arguably the PNW and northern California - is because they fly gas-guzzling planes and they proved unprofitable on long stage lengths to PDX, SEA etc from ORD and DFW. That said, they have codeshares with AS in place to address that very issue.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 176): Other than offering a cheap fare to drive demand up and yields down, what exactly does PHX offer to me better from PDX, and to where, other than the limited natural connections in the southwest which would cause 6 nonstops on US/AA to continue post-merger. (Recall, WN and AS are also in the marketplace with nonstops.)

Not much, which is why I think PDX-PHX will drop to 3x if not fewer. The only markets that capacity will be needed for - if PDX-LAX appears on AA metal or on AS codeshare - will be PDX-PHX/TUS/ABQ/SLC/DEN/ELP and some smaller marginal markets. That's not enough for 6x.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 178):So for US to completely de-hub PHX a la STL, PIT, CVG, MEM would be a mistake, in my opinion of course, due to a large FF base, a fast growing metro area, and a growing business community.

Completely agree, although dehubbing to a spoke station is not the same as dehubbing to a focus city.

Quoting EaglePower83 (Reply 181):Just throwing this out there.....would it be prudent for AA/US to eventually invade DEN or SLC?

Only if they wanted to provoke a fare war that nobody would win. AA doesn't need to be everywhere. Let the other legacies battle WN at the mountain hubs.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 20):And I haven't said either that PHL would be closed... my point is that AA would carry whatever they can from PHL to JFK.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 20):So we basically agree again... PHL is not that important market... if AA at JFK would be able to expand operations as pleased... PHL could be shut down or largely minimized. If PHL would be such relevant market, AA would not do that even if they could grow at JFK as they want.

First of all, who's driving the proverbial bus? Doug Parker is US Airways' president and he's engineered this reverse takeover of AA. I can see DFW over PHX, but Phoenix and PHL are vastly profitable for US, and I don't see them downsizing PHL much; PHX is also well positioned as a western hub (much like DL has SLC). Don't expect either PHL or PHX to go away or shrink in any major way.

Quoting EaglePower83 (Reply 181):Just throwing this out there.....would it be prudent for AA/US to eventually invade DEN or SLC?

Probably not. SLC is one-hub city and DL has that wrapped up well. AA would lose their shirt if they tried to push their way in. With Denver, honestly the only way they could feasibly try and hub it was if they tried to acquire Frontier and even then UA, and WN will make it a bloodbath. That option won't happen either. They are better off building DFW and PHX to compete. They might not be able to serve every landing strip in Montana and would also be routing passengers south/southwest, but there is an acceptable loss of potential traffic when you simply don't have the resources (in this case, a centrally located mountain west hub) to compete.

Quoting superjeff (Reply 183): I can see DFW over PHX, but Phoenix and PHL are vastly profitable for US, and I don't see them downsizing PHL much; PHX is also well positioned as a western hub (much like DL has SLC).

1. PHX is not "vastly" profitable - it's marginally profitable, and has much more value for US as a funnel for West Coast traffic than as any kind of moneymaking hub station.
2. PHX is terribly positioned as a western hub. It's in a good spot to serve the far Southwest - that's it.

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 188):No. Which is why the Phoenix debate goes around in circles and people rehash he same point over and over again.

What seems a little strange to me is how much time on these threads is being spent discussing PHX.... seems like 80% of the postings on this thread there is about what happens there going forward (Perhaps its because PHX really does have the most uncertain future of any of AA/US's hubs). In the global grand scheme of things, PHX is a relatively minor domestic hub with a small international presence.... surely not the only hub that AA/US have that's worth discussing - no?

For me - PHX neither shrinks nor grows going forward. My gut feeling is the ongoing growth in the area and local brand loyality to what will surely be a better all-around product (compared to the current offering at US) will offset the higher costs of the combined AA/US....

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 189):80% of the postings on this thread there is about what happens there going forward (Perhaps its because PHX really does have the most uncertain future of any of AA/US's hubs).

Concur. I landed at PHX this morning and found myself looking at the airport and arriving/departing US aircraft in a very different lens; it's my first time in Phoenix since the merger announcement, hence.

I, like many of you, look forward to seeing what ends up happening to PHX as a hub.

I understand that salaries at US will increase but does that necessarily mean that AA's cost will be higher than the current? I would hope that the economies of scale would mitigate the US cost increases and at least hold AA's costs (ticket prices) at their current level.

Quoting commavia (Reply 180):AA today carries literally millions of people every year between the west and somewhere else, and even some within the west via LAX. US is in exactly the same competitive position.

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 182):The reason AA is weak in some areas - not the entire West Coast but arguably the PNW and northern California - is because they fly gas-guzzling planes and they proved unprofitable on long stage lengths to PDX, SEA etc from ORD and DFW. That said, they have codeshares with AS in place to address that very issue.

Not sure about the "gas-guzzling planes." AA uses B-737s form SEA to ORD and DFW but puts me on an AS 737 to MIA...what is the difference?

I am using the 2 preceding quotes to reintroduce a question I posted in the 1st thread:

**************************
"LAXdude1023 #53 AAmerger part 1

By the way, if you guys are interested in having me do analysis on the other hubs in question, I will be happy to. Just ask.
#245 AAmerger part 1

Up thread I believe you offered to analyze any requested airport. If true, what impact will this merger have on SEA? I typically fly to MAD through ORD (IB) or JFK, and to Central and South America through DFW and MIA.
Thanks,
Cary"
****************************
Rereading the 'dude's offer, SEA was not in question and may not even be a hub...however as an AA frequent flyer out of SEA I am interested in the impact this merger may have on my travels. From all the posts and almost no mention of SEA, it looks like no major changes...right?
Thanks,
Cary

Quoting Caryjack (Reply 191):Not sure about the "gas-guzzling planes." AA uses B-737s form SEA to ORD and DFW but puts me on an AS 737 to MIA...what is the difference?

I'm not 100% sure about what kind of aircraft AA uses on SEA routes, but at PDX all you ever saw for years on end was MD-80s. It's possible that AA valued SEA enough to substitute 737s in, while giving up on PDX.

Quoting EaglePower83 (Reply 181):Just throwing this out there.....would it be prudent for AA/US to eventually invade DEN or SLC?

I'm sure that the DEN airport managers would be THRILLED to have another carrier in the form of the new AA/US hubbing there..... after UA, F9, WN, ZK, and now with NK expanding, as well as all of the other major domestic carriers fighting for a piece of the action there.......

The more the merrier....... and pax to/from DEN would be having airline deals galore......

Quoting Caryjack (Reply 191):Quoting commavia (Reply 174):
The merged airline will have higher costs, which is really going to challenge the economics of a relatively lower-yielding hub like PHX.
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 184):
But won't be as profitable at AA's higher payscale.

I understand that salaries at US will increase but does that necessarily mean that AA's cost will be higher than the current?

Going off what Parker was offering the unions to get their support, the merged carrier's costs will be higher than what AA's would have been if it emerged from bankruptcy alone, the new carrier's costs will still however be significantly lower than what AA's were pre-bankruptcy. US on the other hand will see costs increasing across the board which is what's relevant here as PHX is a US hub operating under current US costs.

Quoting point2point (Reply 193):I'm sure that the DEN airport managers would be THRILLED to have another carrier in the form of the new AA/US hubbing there..... after UA, F9, WN, ZK, and now with NK expanding, as well as all of the other major domestic carriers fighting for a piece of the action there.......

The more the merrier....... and pax to/from DEN would be having airline deals galore......

Not a chance. DEN already has among the lowest (if not absolute lowest) average fares in the country and is arguably overserved at the moment ...

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 194): the new carrier's costs will still however be significantly lower than what AA's were pre-bankruptcy. US on the other hand will see costs increasing across the board which is what's relevant here as PHX is a US hub operating under current US costs.

So a net drop in AA's costs (possibly lower ticket prices) but some increase in US's cost with some higher ticket prices, at least in PHX...right?
Thanks,
Cary

For those sick of talking about PHX, I read a very interesting article today on CAPA about Delta. In passing, it actually included some interesting - and surprising - data about AA-US.

Specifically, the market share statistics for LGA/JFK, LAX and BOS.

At LGA, according at least to CAPA's numbers, AA-US today (pro forma) actually have slightly more seats out of LGA every day than DL. This was highly surprising to me since DL obviously has quite a few more departures, but since most are on RJs where as so many of AA's are mainline, AA-US actually today offers 33.8% of the total seats out of LGA, compared to DL's 33.1%. At JFK, B6 and DL are very close in share of seats, and AA is not all that far behind. To me, this indicates yet again that AA still today remains an extremely strong competitive force in the NYC market, and a merger will only strengthen that.

Similarly, at LAX, it was interesting to see the pro forma AA-US numbers compared with other key competitors. The LAX market certainly remains distinctly fragmented, with four carriers (UA, AA, WN, DL) all having greater than 10% seat share and no single carrier having greater than 20%. Nonetheless, that appears likely to change. AA, which is already very close behind UA today, once merged (again, before accounting for any rationalization, of course) will leapfrog past UA to be the #1 carrier at LAX by seats, at around 21%. I believe this is the first time in at least 3-4 decades, if not longer, that AA has been the #1 carrier at LAX. In addition, WN and DL are also extremely close in seat share, and with DL's recent buildup is almost certain to jump past WN as the #3 carrier at LAX.

Finally, in BOS, what's notable about the seat share statistics is how far all the legacies have fallen relative to B6. B6 is now the undisputed market leader in BOS with 29.5% seat share. The next larger carrier, US, is around half that, at 15.3%. However, AA-US combined, pro forma, would jump into a relatively strong #2 position at around 26%, substantially larger than DL and UA at around 11-12% each.

Quoting Caryjack (Reply 191):I understand that salaries at US will increase but does that necessarily mean that AA's cost will be higher than the current?

Parker has made absolutely no secret for years about the labor cost differential at US relative to legacy competitors, and what drove it. He has said it over and over again - US has a network that puts them at a revenue disadvantage, and therefore they require lower labor costs to compete. Well, those days are over.

The "new AA" is now going to have labor costs much more on par with DL and UA. What this means for PHX, however, is the real key. My suspicion is that PHX is already US' lowest-yielding hub, and therefore the one most reliant on, and sensitive to changes in, the aforementioned below-market labor costs.

That does not make me optimistic about the economics of a hub in PHX - or at least one of the same scale and scope as today - going forward.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 194):Going off what Parker was offering the unions to get their support, the merged carrier's costs will be higher than what AA's would have been if it emerged from bankruptcy alone, the new carrier's costs will still however be significantly lower than what AA's were pre-bankruptcy. US on the other hand will see costs increasing across the board which is what's relevant here as PHX is a US hub operating under current US costs.

AA is all 737/757 in and out of SEA right now, but for most of the last 30 years SEA has been a primarily-MD80 station, outside of certain peak summer seasons when SEA has in the past also seen lots of 757s. In that context, the 737s are a relatively new development, having arrived in SEA pretty much within the last decade.

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 195):Not a chance. DEN already has among the lowest (if not absolute lowest) average fares in the country and is arguably overserved at the moment ...

I didn't say whether there was a chance or not, all I stated is that the airport management would be THRILLED at having another airline such as the new AA/US hubbing there, and it would be in the best interest as such. I'm sure anyone here in a position of an airport manager would welcome any airline that would want to hub at your airport.

May I ask about "among the lowest (if not the lowest) average fares" and what the source is? Maybe they are lower than some major airports in the U.S., but they also may be higher then some other major airports in the U.S.

-------------------

At any rate, I think as time passes, all of the current AA/US hubs will see some reductions, and seats will be reduced in favor of higher revenues throughout the network. Maybe some more than others, but rightsizing will occur, and I think this will be a process that will probably be completed sometime around 2016 before all is said and done.

Quoting commavia (Reply 197):At LGA, according at least to CAPA's numbers, AA-US today (pro forma) actually have slightly more seats out of LGA every day than DL.

Quoting commavia (Reply 197):Nonetheless, that appears likely to change. AA, which is already very close behind UA today, once merged (again, before accounting for any rationalization, of course) will leapfrog past UA to be the #1 carrier at LAX by seats, at around 21%.

Quoting commavia (Reply 197):However, AA-US combined, pro forma, would jump into a relatively strong #2 position [in BOS] at around 26%, substantially larger than DL and UA at around 11-12% each.

So much for the idea that US brought nothing to the table because it had no Asia-Pacific network.

I can't understand how American (even with the US Air merger) has such a presence in Los Angeles as a western gateway when it lacks well behind Delta and United's Asian route networks. Does American depend on more foreign metal by way of partner/alliance to get their customers across the pacific than the other two?

Quoting Fastphilly (Reply 200):I can't understand how American (even with the US Air merger) has such a presence in Los Angeles as a western gateway when it lacks well behind Delta and United's Asian route networks.

AA has the same LAX-Asia presence as UA and a larger LAX-Asia presence than DL. Both AA & UA fly LAX-NRT and LAX-PVG. DL flies only LAX-NRT.

For the future, I would be careful at using schedule analysis such as what CAPA article as they are open to improperly accounting for regional partners. For example in past I have seen AE flights be double counted for both AA and DL (due codeshare). Also the AS/QX codeshare on AA/DL get apportioned wrong.

A much more accurate comparison is actual boardings, not simply future schedules that are open to miscounts.

Back to the point of AA @ LAX, I dont think its not right to simply add up AA+US totals and say they will exceed UA as a result.
US biggest market from LAX is PHX and its one where AA already overlaps. There clearly will be some capacity rationilazation which will drop seats. Also I don't know what has happened to US this year, but so far they are down about 12% from 2012 enplanements at the airport. I suppose they have trimmed flying further.

So ultimately, I think AA-UA will very much be neck and neck with no clear advantage over each other unless one or the other makes some major scheduling shifts at the airport.

p.s. - the one I would like to watch later this year and into 2014 is SWA. With 4 added gates at LAX, they are the ones that could potentially add the most capacity of the group.

Quoting point2point (Reply 198):May I ask about "among the lowest (if not the lowest) average fares" and what the source is? Maybe they are lower than some major airports in the U.S., but they also may be higher then some other major airports in the U.S.

Sure thing!

According to RITA - here's top 49 US air markets by average fare in Q3 2012 (the last quarter that they have data on).

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 204):there is more than a 10% difference between AA and UA.

... and thus they are extremely close in actual market share. Different numbers, slightly different result, true, but same basic idea. Both are very close now, and AA could quite possibly end up larger post-merger - the first time in decades, if ever, that that would be the case.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 204):its not right to simply add up AA+US totals and say they will exceed UA as a result.

... and notice how I never did that.

I specifically caveated my earlier statement that this did not include any rationalization.

Nonetheless, I would be willing to guess that even post-rationalization, AA may well still be slightly ahead of UA, at least for some time, since I don't realistically see much rationalization taking place specifically at LAX outside of the PHX route. Using your own numbers, pro forma, AA-US would be up on UA by around 650,000 boardings per year, or nearly 1,800 per day. AA today only schedules 200 seats per day LAX-PHX. That, not to mention that UA's long-term trajectory at LAX has been down for years, and at least some of the SkyWest EMB flying will be ending and is unlikely to be replaced by CRJs.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 204):So ultimately, I think AA-UA will very much be neck and neck with no clear advantage over each other unless one or the other makes some major scheduling shifts at the airport.

Quoting commavia (Reply 206):Nonetheless, I would be willing to guess that even post-rationalization, AA may well still be slightly ahead of UA, at least for some time, since I don't realistically see much rationalization taking place specifically at LAX outside of the PHX route. Using your own numbers, pro forma, AA-US would be up on UA by around 650,000 boardings per year, or nearly 1,800 per day. AA today only schedules 200 seats per day LAX-PHX. That, not to mention that UA's long-term trajectory at LAX has been down for years, and at least some of the SkyWest EMB flying will be ending and is unlikely to be replaced by CRJs.

Here's the more important question: At LAX, as a result of the merger, does AA end up in a better competitive position than UA?

I think they do, specifically on most of the transcon markets where they compete.

Quoting Austwin (Reply 159): “We gave the people of Arizona more opportunities to fly more places,” he said. “The Phoenix hub is a critical piece of US Airways’ profitability and will be a critical piece of American’s profitability. We will be able to provide more service to the people of Arizona. I feel very good about that.”

I'm gonna sit back now with my Japanese tea and smirk at how the rumors and speculations...and sometimes, outlandish unwarranted attacks against PHX...are now being put to rest.

As I keep saying, the airline would be very stupid to leave PHX and seems like theyre making the right decisions.

I think I mentioned it before but after the merger was announced some people at the airport board were putting together plans to present AA/US with an opportunity to operate a flight, utilizing a slot they have at NRT.

And here's the icing on the cake for my argument and the argument of others who agree with me:

Quote:He said the Dallas hub is far enough away from Phoenix to not interfere with operations and that American uses its hub in Los Angeles for different types of connections, many to Asia, than what the combined airline will do with Phoenix.

Alright, with all respect, how do we know those in leadership at AA and US are not giving out false promises? Delta and United said the same thing about MEM and CLE, how can we be so sure of PHX's future? I am still waiting for a PHX advocate to tell me that, and it is because they can't. I think it's too soon to be calling the complete closure of the hub but it's also too soon to say a hub will stay the same, especially when it has some negative things against it.

My opinion? PHX will see a decrease in flights as there will definitely be redundant traffic flows once combined with DFW and LAX. It will still be a hub, but will serve a niche role in the Southwest. I do not see the reason for growth though. PHX seems well served as it is.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 210):Quoting Austwin (Reply 159):
“We gave the people of Arizona more opportunities to fly more places,” he said. “The Phoenix hub is a critical piece of US Airways’ profitability and will be a critical piece of American’s profitability. We will be able to provide more service to the people of Arizona. I feel very good about that.”

I'm gonna sit back now with my Japanese tea and smirk at how the rumors and speculations...and sometimes, outlandish unwarranted attacks against PHX...are now being put to rest.

Now I know a fellow CVG fanboy wouldn't be as naive as this to think this puts questions about PHX "to rest". Remember when DL was saying that DTW wouldn't threaten CVG and that the two, in fact, "complemented" each other and that CVG and MEM might even get service to NRT? That was about 300 flights ago. I can't say for sure what PHX will ultimately look like after all is said and done, but going from precedent, airline executives will say whatever is needed to be said to get the merger approved.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 210):I'm gonna sit back now with my Japanese tea and smirk at how the rumors and speculations...and sometimes, outlandish unwarranted attacks against PHX...are now being put to rest.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 210):And here's the icing on the cake for my argument and the argument of others who agree with me:

These are words - just like all the other words you've posted in thread after thread that you think supposedly "prove" your argument. And, as has been mentioned literally dozens of times in thread after thread, these are essentially the exact same words spoken by other airline CEOs to local leaders and employees in other hubs with similarly dubious rationales for continued major hub status.

If you want to continue to - in my opinion - delude yourself into thinking PHX can escape inherently inescapable economic reality, then so be it. But as I and many others have attempted (thus far unsuccessfully) to explain, the numbers - to many of us - just don't seem to add up to bridge the gap from mere words to reality.

As such, I am still looking for the "icing on the cake" of your argument that explains how a hub in a generally poor geographic position, with low yields and a competing hub by the largest low-cost airline in the country, and with other hubs in the same network that are as-well if not better-positioned to serve the same connecting flows, can remain a hub of its present stature. I just don't see it. And you have yet to post anything - any single thing - that answers that question for me.

Quoting jonathanxxxx (Reply 211):PHX will see a decrease in flights as there will definitely be redundant traffic flows once combined with DFW and LAX.

Quoting Austwin (Reply 159):Were promises made? No. Where flight schedules revealed? No. Does what they said squash all the reasoning posted on the forum about flights being shifted to DFW and LAX by the droves? Yes.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 210):
I'm gonna sit back now with my Japanese tea and smirk at how the rumors and speculations...and sometimes, outlandish unwarranted attacks against PHX...are now being put to rest.

Are you guys interested in buying a landmark New York city bridge? Because I'm looking to offload one ....

Quoting commavia (Reply 213):These are words - just like all the other words you've posted in thread after thread that you think supposedly "prove" your argument. And, as has been mentioned literally dozens of times in thread after thread, these are essentially the exact same words spoken by other airline CEOs to local leaders and employees in other hubs with similarly dubious rationales for continued major hub status.

So I've been thinking lately about how MIA is going to be affected by this merger. Currently AA/US operate about 350~ish flights from MIA. We don't know if MIA is going to end up siphoning traffic from CLT, so there are several variables in play here. Personally, I think a decline in flights at MIA is very unlikely. So the question is - how much growth happens there? What do you guys see happening? Are 500~ / 600~ flights a day in MIA's future? MIA-NRT/JNB etc have been talked about a lot as possible new routes. With AY being added to the TATL JV, I think there's a real chance that either AA or AY will start HEL-MIA. What other ones would be added as part of a growth scenario?

Quoting commavia (Reply 213):If you want to continue to - in my opinion - delude yourself into thinking PHX can escape inherently inescapable economic reality, then so be it. But as I and many others have attempted (thus far unsuccessfully) to explain, the numbers - to many of us - just don't seem to add up to bridge the gap from mere words to reality.

If one reads the arguments from the PHX supporters carefully, it goes like this:

General population: "The hub at PHX is at risk of being downsized to what O&D can support, plus connecting opportunities from within the region."

PHX supporters: "AA/US would be stupid to leave PHX."

There doesn't seem to be any grey area in there for PHX supporters to assess. It's an either/or situation. Either a full-fledged hub, or zero flights.

In reality, PHX might become something similar to a larger PDX. As described many a time, O&D flights as the market can support, plus commuter flights from around the region timed to hub with flights into other regions.

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 214):We don't know if MIA is going to end up siphoning traffic from CLT, so there are several variables in play here.

There will obviously be interaction between the two hubs, in my view primarily on the international side, and it's hard for me to imagine how that would be a negative for MIA. MIA is such a gleaming gem of a hub economically - I don't see anything in this merger harming the hub at all.

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 214):Personally, I think a decline in flights at MIA is very unlikely.

I agree. I think MIA is likely to continue on its steady growth path going forward - the economic trajectory of Latin America only helps MIA.

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 214):So the question is - how much growth happens there? What do you guys see happening? Are 500~ / 600~ flights a day in MIA's future?

I don't think 500-600 flights is realistic anytime soon, but I don't think it's at all out of the question to imagine 400+ daily departures in the relatively near future.

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 214):MIA-NRT/JNB etc have been talked about a lot as possible new routes.

I, personally, think nonstop AA flights from MIA to both Asia and South Africa are entirely plausible in the next few years.

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 214):What other ones would be added as part of a growth scenario?

Milan, Zurich, South Africa, Tokyo, possibly Helsinki, Tel Aviv....definitely new domestic services (Austin comes to mind). I'd also expect some extra flights on current services, like a second to Seattle and a fourth to San Francisco, and more to Phoenix.

Quoting commavia (Reply 216):I don't think 500-600 flights is realistic anytime soon, but I don't think it's at all out of the question to imagine 400 daily departures in the relatively near future.

Let's play around with post merger rationalization - what if MIA 'steals' 50 flights/day from CLT, and adds 50 because of AA's improving sitution (as you seem to suggust)? Now were up to 450 in a snap of the fingers. How much traffic does MIA 'steal' from CLT, anyways?

Quoting commavia (Reply 216):There will obviously be interaction between the two hubs, in my view primarily on the international side, and it's hard for me to imagine how that would be a negative for MIA. MIA is such a gleaming gem of a hub economically - I don't see anything in this merger harming the hub at all.

I agree, but I don't think it's going to help MIA too much either (not that, as you point out, MIA needs a whole lot of help). I see two primary "merger effects" for MIA:

1) Shift in some flying to secondary Caribbean markets from CLT (but perhaps offset somewhat by less traffic to bigger Caribbean markets that is shifted to CLT)

2) Added flying the stations in the northeast where the combination of US' historic strength and additional 70-90 seat lift will make flights viable (BUF, SYR, ALB, PVD, etc.).

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 215):In reality, PHX might become something similar to a larger PDX. As described many a time, O&D flights as the market can support, plus commuter flights from around the region timed to hub with flights into other regions.

Lets not also forget that US currently has a fair number of services into Mexico all to itself that it doesn't have access to at LAX on its own metal. So PHX playing a downgraded, but still sizeable role as a regional hub, with decent West Coast service and high frequency shuttles to key US/AA hubs to the East makes alot of sense. The AALAX hub can focus more on the O&D opportunities from the LA basin and connecting pax to International flights while PHX acts as a domestic & regional connecting station for the West covering smaller destinations with decent O&D from PHX along with some connections which won't work at DFW and aren't an effective use of scarce resources to run through a constrained LAX station. Both could work in tandem with the other given specific roles in the network.

The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.